(Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.)
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18447 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015, decided on July 9, 2021
Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd.) ___ Petitioner;
v.
Goa Foundation and Others ________________________ Respondent(s).
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41515 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015
State of Goa and Another ___________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Goa Foundation and Others _______________________ Respondent(s).
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41517 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2015
State of Goa ______________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Sudip N. Tamankar and Others _____________________ Respondent(s).
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41543 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32699-32727 of 2015
State of Goa and Another __________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Rama Ladu Velip and Others _____________________ Respondent(s).
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41545 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 711 of 2015
State of Goa _______________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Goa Foundation and Others ________________________ Respondent(s).
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18430 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32707 of 2015
(@ SLP(C) Nos. 32699-32727 of 2015)
Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd.) ___ Petitioner;
v.
Rama Ladu Velip and Others ______________________ Respondent(s).
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18435 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 711 of 2015
Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly known as Sesa Goa Ltd.) _________ Petitioner;
v.
Goa Foundation __________________________________ Respondent.
With
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18438 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2015
Vedanta Ltd. (Formerly known as Sesa Goa Ltd.) __________ Petitioner;
v.
Sudip N. Tamankar and Others ____________________ Respondent(s).
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18447 of 2020; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015; Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41515 of 2019; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015; Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41517 of 2019; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2015; Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41543 of 2019; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32699-32727 of 2015; Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41545 of 2019; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 711 of 2015; Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18430 of 2020; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32707 of 2015 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 32699-32727 of 2015); Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18435 of 2020; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 711 of 2015; Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18438 of 2020; and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2015
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.:—
1. The review petitions have been preferred by the State of Goa (Diary No 41515 of 2019 and Diary No 41517 of 2019, both with a delay of 650 days and Diary No 41453 of 2019 and Diary No 41545 of 2019, both with a delay of 651 days) and by Vedanta Limited (formerly known as M/s. Sesa Sterlite Limited) (Diary No 18430 of 2020, Diary No 18435 of 2020, Diary No 18438 of 2020 and Diary No 18447 of 2020, all four with a delay of 907 days) against the judgement of a two-judge bench of this Court in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Limited1, pronounced on 7 February 2018.
2. In accordance with Rule 2 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, an application for review of a judgement has to be filed within thirty days of the date of the judgement or order that is sought to be reviewed. No cogent grounds have been furnished for the delay between 20 and 26 months by the two parties in filing their applications for review. The judges comprising the two-judge bench in Goa Foundation II, Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, retired from this Court on 30 December 2018 and 6 May 2020, respectively. The State of Goa preferred its four review petitions in the month of November 2019, after Justice Madan B. Lokur’s retirement, while Vedanta Limited preferred its four review petitions in the month of August 2020, right after Justice Deepak Gupta’s retirement. Such practise must be firmly disapproved to preserve the institutional sanctity of the decision making of this Court. The review petitioners were aware of the decision of this Court.
3. Keeping in mind the above, we are inclined to dismiss these review petitions on the ground of limitation alone. However, in any event, we also find that no legitimate grounds for review of the judgment in Goa Foundation II have been made out, and dismiss these review petitions on merits as well.
4. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
———
1 (2018) 4 SCC 218, hereinafter referred to as “Goa Foundation II”
