AjlDUL REHMAN ANTULAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

' ' ,.. . .,., .A..

.

April 17, 1984 ~ .· # .

·constitution ·of India Ari. 1'41--i>uty of all courts to follow d~cision of c the Supreme Court; S~preme Court Rufes-Whether Supreme Court cafl. entertain writ petition aiafnst its own .ofder anti i;tdgmfnt. · . ,.,_ ORJGIN,l.L & CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Cr!) No. 708 of !934. · D '(Under Article· 32 of the Constitution of India) And Spe~ial Leave Petitiob (Cr!) Nos. 1949·50 of 1984 (From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.84 and 16,3.84 of E the Bombay High Court in Speciat'Case Nos. 24/82 & 3/83)

Mtirli Bhandare;Govindtfas, Ms-. Bina Gupta, H.R: Bhardwaj and PP. Singh for the petitioner. · ' R.am Jethma/ani, Ashok Desai and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for • the _respondents. The Order, 'of the Court was delivered by

AMARE'WRA NATH SEN, J. There· is' no merit in this Writ Petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. , G In inY view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court ·as nullity or otherwise incorrect ·cannot be entertained. "t wish to make it cleat that the ·dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which be may be entitle<! in law to file. . .

A.R. ANT1JLAY v. UNION (Desai, J.) 483

DESAI, J. I broadly agree with the. conclusion recorded by my br9ther.

The learned Judge in deciding the S.L.P (Crl) Nos. 1149-50/ 1984 has followed the decision of this Court: The learned Judge · was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of th.e learned ' ')r Judge to follow the decision of this Court ·which is binding on · B '" him.·

Special 'leave petitions are dismissed.

H.S.K. Petitions dismissed. c •