MOHAMMAD ASLAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is for reconsideration of the judgment in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil, (1996) 1 SCC 169 . The petitioner's contention, in substance, is that the judgment is incorrect.

(2.) It is sufficient to say that Article 32 of the Constitution is not available to assail the correctness of a decision on merits or to claim its reconsideration. This has been clearly reiterated in the recent decision in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, 1995 (6) Scale 742, wherein the decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 1 Suppl. SCR 1 has been explained. This alone is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition.

(3.) However, in view of certain apprehensions expressed by the petitioner, we deem it proper to make some further observation now, which we had considered unnecessary to incorporate in the judgment in Manohar Joshi, (supra). We may observe that the decision of this Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 ;, did not relate to the construction of, and determination of the scope of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and, therefore, nothing in the decision in S.R. Bommai is of assistance for construing the meaning and scope of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. Reference to the decision in S.R. Bommai is, therefore, inapposite in this context.