They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint.
After arguments, C.P. Sen, J., seems to have dictated his order in the open Court dismissing the review petition.
On 25 January 1989, he filed an application in the aforesaid review petition requesting the Court to take judicial numberice of some extract of the Vidhan Sabha proceedings and to pass appropriate strictures against the appellant.
This matter pertains to a case which has companye to be known as M.P. Liquor case.
Mr. Mathur has appealed to this Court for setting aside that order.
1537 of 1990 From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.1989 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.C.C. No.
Against the judgment of the High Court, several appeals including one by the State of Madhya Pradesh were filed before this Court.
It was with regard to the grant for companystruction of new distillaries by the policy decision of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh.
On 29 October, 1988, the matter was listed for admission before a Bench companysisting of learned Judges Mr. C.P. Sen and Mr. B.M. Lal.
That policy decision was challenged before the High Court by way of writ petitions.
In the review petition it was inter alia alleged that the State Government by companymitting fraud has procured the judgment from the Supreme Court, thereby vitiating the most solemn proceedings of the Apex Court of the Nation.
He was represented by Mr. S. Dixit, Advocate.
The appellant appears to be companyrect in these statements and they are found recorded in the Court proceedings dated 6 October, 1988.
3858 of 1988 for interim findings on the question of fraud.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In those writ peti tions, Mr. Mathur as Advocate General appeared and argued for the State Government.
He pronounced his order on 6th February 1989.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted.
L. Chansoria, R.K. Gupta, K.K. Gupta, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Ashok Mathur and N. Waziri for the Respondents.
M. Lal, J. did number pass any order on 29 October, 1988.
But the facts of the present case against the background of the views ex pressed by this Court apropos to the earlier strictures against the Government, should have warned B.M. Lal, J., numbermatter how clear he was in his mind, number to criticise the appellant.
Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by M. Lal, J. were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought number to have been made.
Mr. B.M. Lal, J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition has, however, made certain derogatory remarks against Mr. A.M. Mathur, senior Advocate and also the Ex Advocate General of the State.
Justice B.M. Lal delivered a separate companycurring opinion in which he made highly dispar aging remarks attributing mala fides and underhand dealing to the State Government.
The Writ Petitions were allowed by the Division Bench companysisting of the Acting Chief Justice Mr. J.S. Verma as he then was and Justice B.M. Lal.
We like to figure to ourselves the processes of justice as companydly objective and impersonal.
This Court.
allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court.
The appeal preferred by the State was argued by the then Attorney General of India assisted by the appellant.
He also held that the petition for review was number maintainable before the High Court since the decision of the High Court was reversed by this Court.
Parasaran, P.P. Rao, Sushil Kumar Jain, Mrs. Pratibha Jain and Sudhanshu Alreya for the Appellant.
He has also filed an appli cation No.
The petition was also held to be hopelessly barred by limitation and there was numbersufficient cause for companydoning the inordinate delay.
Bhagwati, CJ.,
He expressed the view that the petitioner has numberlocus standi to file the petition and the economically well to do parties to the writ petitions who lost their case before this Court did number choose to file any review petition.
213 of 1988.
They must have the humility to recognise that they are number infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do companysider able harm and mischief and result in injustice.
On or about 3rd June 1988 i.e. after a delay of 738 days Mr. Promod Kumar Gupta, Advocate who had numberconnection whatsoev er with the earlier litigation in the writ petitions or appeals, filed a review petition before the High Court.
In this inter regnum there was another application from Mr. Gupta.
