Permission to file appeal / SLP

Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties, (1970) 3 SCC 573, para 83. - a person who is not a party to the suit may challenge it appeal with leave of the court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected.. 

An order passed by mistake and ignorance can be reviewed

G. Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., (2005) 13 SCC 712 at page 718

20. An order passed by mistake and ignorance of the relevant facts indisputably can be reviewed, if inter alia, it is found that a fraud was practised or there was wilful suppression on the part of the appellant.

 

Treating Ordinary Writ as " PIL "

Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Parenteral Drugs (India) (P) Ltd., (2001) 1 SCC 715 at page 719

6. Admittedly neither of the parties came to Court with a case of the nature as has been depicted above. While it is true that the observations of the Court as the one noticed above, are not as strictly warranted in the facts but one need not fail to appreciate that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being any social problem it would be well-within the domain of the law court to take such step or steps as they may deem fit and appropriate and this is so in spite of the fact that the lis between the parties does not warrant such a conclusion. But in the matter in issue by reason of the long lapse of time the whole exercise has become totally infructuous: Eleven years have passed and the State, however, has not taken any steps in terms thereof, prior to the obtaining the order of stay from this Court.

 

Permission to file SLP

Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54 at page 74

45. We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a far-reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so.

 

Appointment to Constitutional Post is not service matter

State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok, (2013) 5 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 1 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 162 at page 47

79. This being the position, it is not possible to say that the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission does not occupy a constitutional position or a constitutional post. To describe the appointment to a constitutional post generically or even specifically as a “service matter” would be most inappropriate, to say the least.

 

Jurisdictional Error if the Court interferes with a contract and does not consider the rights and obligations of the parties

Soma Isolux NH One Tollway (P) Ltd. v. Harish Kumar Puri, (2014) 6 SCC 75

Writ Petition against a judgment

Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 749] a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed seeking reconsideration of the judgment rendered by this Court on the ground that the said judgment is incorrect. Rejecting the prayer, this Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution is not available to assail the correctness of the decision on merit or to claim its reconsideration.