Registry cannot decline curative petition only because review plea was dismissed in open court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the registry of the apex court has no discretion to refuse the registration of curative petitions merely because the review petition was heard and dismissed in open court. [M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries vs The Assam State Electricity Board] .A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia emphasised that the proper course to be adopted by the registry would be to obtain instructions from the judge in chambers and communicate the same to the party.The proper course for the registry would be to obtain instructions from the judge in chambers and thereafter communicate the same to the party, on receiving such an application," the Court stated while reading out the operative part of the judgment..Further, the Court said that the applicant must pray for an exemption from complying with Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 and specifically request that the matter be presented before the chamber judge for proper guidance.As per the Rule, the petitioner in the curative petition has to specifically state that the grounds mentioned in the curative petition were taken in the review petition as well and that it was dismissed. Moreover, the Court clarified that the curative petition should be circulated among the judges who had participated in the review petition proceedings and the delivery of the original judgment provided they are still in office..The verdict came in a case involving the question of whether the registry of the Court can refuse to register a curative petition merely because a review petition in the case was heard and dismissed in open court.Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran was Amicus Curiae in the matter.The matter arose out of an application by a party that had filed curative petitions in the case before the registry. However, the Supreme Court registry had refused to accept and register the curative petition, after noting that the review applications were not dismissed by circulation.Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, appearing for the applicant, had argued before the Supreme Court bench that the conclusion reached by the registry runs contrary to the decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another (2002).It was stated that the said issue requires an interpretation of Rule 2(1) Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013.The top court underscored that the exercise of determining a curative petition's maintainability is a judicial one."This is a matter which ought to be decided by a Bench of this Court and not by the Registry. This is a judicial exercise ... Registry cannot be vested with power to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction. As we have already observed, that would be a judicial exercise. The Registry in a situation of this nature, cannot keep the matter pending as “defective”"..As far as the appeal was concerned, the Court determined that no ground was made for it to take a relook at the appellant's case and hence refused to entertain the curative petition..Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria appeared for the respondent..[Read judgment]