AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1130 ::2002 AIR SCW 885 ::(2003) 1 GCD 106 (SC) ::2002 (1) UJ (SC) 470 ::2002 UJ(SC) 1 470 ::2002 (3) SCC 202 ::(2002) 3 RecCivR 1 ::(2002) 2 Scale 263 ::(2002) 1 ALD(CRL) 467 ::2002 (2) BLJ 489 ::2002 (4) GujLR 2777 ::2002 (2) GujLH 349 ::(2002) 2 EastCriC 296 ::(2002) 2 Raj LW 293 ::(2002) 2 SCJ 93 ::2002 (1) LRI 558 ::2002 (2) SLT 116 ::2002 (2) Supreme 41 ::(2002) 1 EFR 570 ::(2002) 2 JT 207 (SC) ::2002 (3) SRJ 555

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Gujarat)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. N. Khare, Ashok Bhan , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.136— Special Leave Petition - Dismissal of in limine without a speaking order - Does not attract of doctrine of merger - And view expressed in impugned order does not become view of Supreme Court. Precedents - Doctrine of merger Dismissal of special leave petition without a speaking order would only mean that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in granting leave to file the appeal. It does not attract the doctrine of merger and the view expressed in the impugned order does not become the view of this Court. The dismissal of the special leave petition by a non-speaking order would remain a dismissal simplicitor in which permission to file the appeal to this Court is not granted. This may be because of various reasons. It would not mean to be the declaration of law by this Court. Thus, the dismissal of the special leave petition in limine against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would not operate as a binding precedent taking away the jurisdiction of a co-equal Bench to adjudicate on the same point on merits in a case where the leave to file the appeal has been granted. Submission that different laws would be prevalent in different States because of the different views expressed by different High Courts thus creating uncertainty and confusion cannot be accepted as the law declared....