Page 43 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] DOING COMPLETE JUSTICE IN ANY CAUSE OR MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 142 A135

Cases where the jurisdiction was exercised/not exercised :
After having discussed the nature and ambit of the jurisdiction and con-
ditions subject to which the jurisdiction may be exercised etc., now a few cases
where the jurisdiction was exercised or not exercised need be discussed. In the
Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan and Others (AIR
1965 SC 458), it was observed :
“34. Now, that we find that this statutory requirement was not complied
with before the revisional order was made, we do not think it will be proper
for us to ignore this infirmity in the order. It is true that the Learned Attor-
ney-General contended that as soon as the Court accepts the plea that the re-
visional order challenged by the appellant by their writ petition is invalid for
the reason that the appellate authority did not comply with the provisions of
S. 64-A, the writ petition ought to be allowed and no opportunity can of
should be given to the said authority to reconsider the matter. We are not im-
pressed by this argument. We are satisfied that in the circumstances of this
case, we ought to exercise our powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution and
send the matter back to the revisional authority to be dealt with in accordance
with law, because there is no doubt that by adopting this course full justice
will be done between the parties.”
[Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan and Others
(AIR 1965 SC 458)]
In Managanese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha and Others case, it was
observed :
“19. The view which we have taken in these appeals, renders the order of
labour Court, Jabalpur on the issue of concessional supply, of grain, inopera-
tive and non est. It would be travesty of justice if we do not extend the benefit
of this judgment to the workmen employed with the appellant in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. Notwithstanding the order of the labour Court which has
become final, we invoke our powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution of In-
dia and direct that the benefit of this judgment be extended to the workmen
of the appellant in the State of Madhya Pradesh. We direct the appellant to re-
fund the amount deducted from the wages of the workmen who were before
the Labour Court, Jabalpur, and to all other workmen. Similarly situated
within three months from today with 12% interest.”
[Managanese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha and Others - AIR 1991 SC
520]
In Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise - (AIR
1999 SC 3643), applications were filed for direction under Article 142 of the Con-
stitution read with Order 47, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. It was ob-
served in para 9 of the said decision that merely because it is open to the appli-
cant to initiate such an action it would not be just and proper to refuse the claim
made in these applications as in any case the applicant is entitled to return of the
money value of the goods which were illegally confiscated by the respondent. In
the result the applications were allowed.
However, in Union of India and Others v. Smt. Darshna Devi (AIR 1997 SC
166), when Hon’ble Supreme Court asked the Counsel as to under what provi-
sions of law the applications were maintainable, the Counsel stated that the
Court can do it under its inherent power. Thereupon, it was observed that the
inherent power is meant only to correct orders when other remedy is not availa-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  43