The Practical Lawyer

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma, (2014) 5 SCC 551

Constitution of India

Art. 129 - Civil contempt - Change in law after inter partes decision has attained finality - Res judicata - Applicability of -
Extent of - Reiterated, subsequent change in law is not a ground on which obedience/implementation of the final inter
partes judgment can be avoided, withheld or refused - Wilful disobedience if established - Supreme Court's earlier order
attaining finality wherein directions were issued to State Government to recommend petitioner's case to Central
Government for grant of adequate iron ore reserves for their steel plants in the State, in BPSL, (2012) 4 SCC 246 -
Difficulty/Incapability of enforcement expressed by State Government, due to certain subsequent developments and
changed legal position due to Sandur Manganese, (2010) 13 SCC 1 - Untenability - Held, such a plea cannot be raised
to avoid implementation of the directions in BPSL, (2012) 4 SCC 246 - Respondents/contemnors are in contempt of
Supreme Court's orders in view of categorical and unambiguous directions given in BPSL, (2012) 4 SCC 246 which had
attained finality - Merely because another judgment has been delivered by Supreme Court cannot be a ground to undo
the directions in said judgment - Insofar as law laid down in Sandur Manganese case is concerned, that may be applied
and followed by State Government in respect of other pending applications but not qua the petitioner whose rights have
been crystallised by judgment in its favour - Judgment which has attained finality cannot be reopened, that too at the
stage of implementation - However, one final opportunity given to State Government to purge the contempt by
transmitting requisite recommendations to Central Government - Open to Central Government to consider the said
recommendations on their own merits and in accordance with law, (2014) 5 SCC 551-A

Constitution of India

Art. 129 - Civil contempt - Intervention application - Maintainability - Contempt petition filed for non-compliance by State
with Supreme Court's earlier order to recommend petitioner BPSL's case to Central Government for grant of lease of
mining iron ore reserves - Intervention by other applicants claiming that area applied for by them overlapped with area
applied for by BPSL - Contempt of court is a matter between the court and the contemnor and hence, held, third parties
cannot intervene - Intervention applications thus not maintainable, (2014) 5 SCC 551-B

Constitution of India

Art. 32 - Maintainability - Violation of fundamental right not shown - Writ petitioners, on the basis of parity, seeking
benefit of judgment passed in BPSL, (2012) 4 SCC 246 wherein State Government was directed to recommend BPSL's
case to Central Government for grant of mining lease for their proposed steel plant - Writ petitions, held, not maintainable
- No fundamental right of writ petitioners herein is violated by non-grant of mining lease - They cannot approach the
Supreme Court directly under Art. 32, though they are at liberty to take recourse to any other remedy available to them
as per law - Hence, if any action is filed, it would be open to forum concerned to deal with the question as to whether the
petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of said judgment or not, including any other issues that might be raised,
(2014) 5 SCC 551-C

https://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated: Monday, April 29, 2019