Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corp. v. Pran Sukh & Ors.
Background
The State of Haryana acquired land for an industrial development corporation, which allots plots to beneficiaries. The High Court enhanced the compensation by relying on a sale deed between two companies, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2010. The Manesar Industrial Welfare Association, a group of plot beneficiaries, later claimed that those two companies were under common management and had inflated the sale price, and filed a curative petition. The Registry refused to list it because the earlier curative petition had not been challenged and the facts had not changed.
Decision Breakdown
The Court agreed with the Registry's objections and held the curative petition misconceived and vexatious. The applicant was similarly placed to another association that had earlier been held to lack locus standi, and the grounds it raised were the same as those already dismissed in review. The applicant knew of the ongoing proceedings but never sought to be impleaded, so it could not claim a violation of natural justice. The Court restated that a curative petition can succeed only where a person was denied natural justice or a judge failed to disclose a connection giving rise to bias, and that the petition must certify that the same grounds were raised in review. The proceedings were closed with costs of Rs. 1 lakh payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. The costs were suspended but become payable if the applicant or its members file any further litigation on the same subject.
Lesson Learnt
A curative petition is a last resort and is available only in narrow cases, such as a clear denial of natural justice or judicial bias, not simply to re-argue a case already decided. Anyone who wants to challenge a court outcome must act while the case is pending, for example by seeking to be made a party, rather than waiting until the judgment is final.