[More trouble for Justice Chandrachud] Petitioner filed petition for rehearing the writ. Ground given that the objection by Justice Ravindra Bhat was overruled and against the Constitution Bench judgment.

Cited Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgments and asked for deciding the case as per written agreements by the Bench other than CJI U. U. Lalit as the order is vitiated for its hearing by Justice Lalit, who himself has recommended Justice D. Y. Chandrachud as his successor.

New Delhi :- There seem to have some more trouble for Justice Chandrachud in his oath taking as CJI as the petitioner had filed an application for recall of the order dismissing the writ petition.

The grounds taken in the recall application are as under: -

1.  The counsel for Petitioner was not allowed to raise certain grounds due to the objection by Justice Ravindra Bhat. The objection taken by Justice Ravindra Bhat was that the allegations against Justice Chandrachud had acted in wilful disregard of binding precedents cannot be decided on judicial side in a petition. Said objection is an overruled objection in view of Seven Judge Bench judgment in Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7SCC 1 where in para 1 & 60 such objections were specifically overruled. The said judgement was specifically mentioned in the Writ and also in the written arguments, but were not considered by the court.

Hence, the mistake of the court is apparent on the face of record and on this ground alone order is liable to be recalled as per law laid down in Amore Jewels Private Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 11931, ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 171, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1

2. The Supreme Court did not give any reason and dismissed the writ petition by cryptic order that the Writ Petition is misconceived.

Such dismissal of writ is against the rules of natural justice and law laid down in various cases such as:      

(i) Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336.

 (ii) Ram Phal vs. State (2009) 3 SCC 258.

(iii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal (2004) 5 SCC 573.

(iv) Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 172.

3. The Bench failed to consider the written arguments submitted by the counsel for petitioner. Hence, order is perverse and vitiated. [Prem Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (2013) 14 SCC 653, G. Jay Rao Vs. State of UP 2003 AIHC 2979, Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma v. Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah 2004 SCC OnLine Ap 1009 (para 7), Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 666

4. Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1786 had ruled that in such cases the order has to be recalled.

5. Chief Justice U. U. Lalit could not have heard the case regarding disqualification of Justice Chandrachud as Justice Lalit himself have recommended the name of Justice Chandrachud. Therefore, the order is null & void as Coram-Non-Judice [State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association Vs. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 808].