"Second" SLP (by different party) against same impugned order may still be entertained

Delhi Admn. v. Madan Lal Nangia, (2003) 10 SCC 321 at page 326

4. Dr Dhavan submitted that this civil appeal should be dismissed because the Delhi Development Authority had also filed a special leave petition against this portion of the judgment whereby the writ petition of the respondents had been allowed. He pointed out that in that special leave petition the Union of India and the Delhi Administration were Respondents 10 and 13 respectively. He submitted that that special leave petition was dismissed on 18-11-1996. He pointed out that the review filed by the Delhi Development Authority was also dismissed on 7-11-2000. He submitted that in this special leave petition the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority have not been made parties obviously with an intention of hiding the fact that the Delhi Development Authority's special leave petition had been dismissed. We are unable to accept this submission. We have seen the orders dated 18-11-1996 whereby the Delhi Development Authority's special leave petition was summarily dismissed. It is settled law that if a special leave petition is summarily dismissed such a dismissal does not bar other parties from filing a special leave petition against the same judgment. No authority is required for this proposition but if any is required, then the cases of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359] and S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of T.N. [(2002) 8 SCC 361] may be looked at. Even otherwise, the order dated 7-11-2000 is very clear. On this date the Delhi Development Authority's review petition was dismissed, but this order specifically delinked this civil appeal along with two other civil appeals. Once this Court has specifically chosen to keep this appeal alive, we do not consider it correct or proper to now dismiss this appeal only on the ground that the special leave petition and the review petition of the Delhi Development Authority have been dismissed.