Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries vs Assam State Electricity Board 2024 INSC 145 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 758 – Curative Jurisdiction – Registry’s Power To Dismiss

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 ; Order XLVIII- Curative Petition- Whether Registry has the power to dismiss a curative petition solely on the ground that no averment has been made to the effect that the review petition was dismissed by circulation? This is a matter which ought to be decided by a Bench of this Court and not by the Registry – 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 -a curative petition arising from an order dismissing a review petition upon hearing in open Court must contain a plea or prayer seeking excuse from compliance of making averment as contained in Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) of the 2013 Rules. The proper course for the Registry on receiving such a petition with a prayer to be excused from the above requirement would be to obtain instructions from the Judge in chambers and thereafter communicate such instructions to the parties. In the second part of Rule 2 it is provided that the Registrar herself can direct the applicant to serve the other party with a notice of motion returnable before the Court while she opines that it is desirable that the application should be dealt with in the open Court. The said part of the Rule would not apply in a case where the applicant seeking to invoke curative jurisdiction approaches this Court after the review petition is dismissed in open court hearing. The applicant for invoking curative jurisdiction, in such a situation, , must file an application praying to be excused from compliance with Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules and such application shall also contain a request for the matter to be placed before the chamber judge for proper instructions. In other cases pertaining to curative petitions, in which the review plea is dismissed by circulation, the curative petition has to be circulated first to a Bench of three senior-most Judges of this Court and the Judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available. Thereafter, the course prescribed in sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 4 of Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules shall be followed as may be applicable. (Para 18-21)

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 ; Order XLVIII- Curative Petition- the curative jurisdiction being a special jurisdiction derived from inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court, the limitation prescribed for filing of review petition cannot be extended to apply in the cases of curative petition- Curative jurisdiction of this Court does not flow from its power to review, but this jurisdiction is derived from Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, Rule 3 of Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules specifically stipulates that curative petition has to be filed within reasonable time from the date of judgment or order passed in a review petition. No timeframe has been formulated in the 2013 Rules either for filing a curative petition. (Para 11)