Page 48 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A64 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

was dismissed by circulation.
(2) A curative petition shall be accompanied by a certificate of the
Senior Advocate that the petition meets the requirements delineated in
the above case.
(3) A curative petition shall be accompanied by a certificate of the
Advocate on Record to the effect that it is the first curative petition in the
impugned matter.
3. The curative petition shall be filed within reasonable time from the
date of judgment or Order passed in the Review Petition.
4.(1) The curative petition shall be first circulated to a Bench of the
three seniormost judges and the judges who passed the judgment com-
plained of, if available.
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a curative petition shall
be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments but the peti-
tioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments.
Evolution of Curative Jurisdiction
Existence of curative jurisdiction was recognized by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others case, wherein it was held :
“20. The scope of Article 142 was considered in several decisions and re-
cently in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895 :
(1998) 4 SCC 409 : (1998 AIR SCW 1706) by which the decision of this Court in
V.C. Mishra, Re, (1995) 2 SCC 584 was partly overruled, it was held that the
plenary power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent
in the Court and are “COMPLEMENTARY” to those powers which are spe-
cifically conferred on the Court by various statutes. This power exists as a
separate and independent basis of jurisdiction apart from the statutes. The
Court further observed that though the powers conferred on the court by Ar-
ticle 142 are curative in nature, they cannot be construed as powers which au-
thorise the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant. The Court fur-
ther observed that this power cannot be used to “supplant” substantive law
applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the court. Article 142
even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice
where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing
with a subject and thereby achieve something indirectly which cannot be
achieved directly.”
[M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others -AIR 2000 SC 1997]
This decision was relied on in E.S.P. Rajaram and Others v. Union of India
and Others, (AIR 2001 SC 581).
In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another case, the curative juris-
diction was not only recognized but the procedure to file application under this
jurisdiction was also laid down. Procedure laid down for filing curative applica-
tion, in this decision now finds mention in Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 (extracted above). In this case, question arose for consideration was :
whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent pow-
ers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either
without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to
unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of
the Court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person?
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  64