AVISHEK GOENKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applications for impleadment and intervention are allowed subject to just exceptions. All applications for placing documents on record are also allowed.

(2.) I.A. No. 5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and Distributors of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the dismissal of two interim applications, i.e., seeking permission to file application for impleadment and application for modification by the Registrar of this Court vide his Order dated 16th May, 2012.

(3.) The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed that application for impleadment was not maintainable inasmuch as the writ petition in which the application was filed has already been disposed of. In regard to the application for modification, according to the applicants, the petitioner suppressed various aspects of the matter and misled the court in passing the order and the same order was therefore, liable to be modified. Dealing with this contention, the learned Registrar, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors., 2000 7 SCC 296 held that the application, in fact, was an application for review and not for modification. Thus, he declined to receive the application and registered the same in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court.