Supreme Court dismisses Article 32 challenge, directs petitioners to seek recall or Article 136 remedy

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sajay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard a petition under Article 32 by owners of apartments constructed by a private developer, who challenged a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 25, 2024. The petitioners sought a declaration that the High Court judgment was illegal for having been passed without hearing necessary parties, a survey to ascertain encroachment on government land, regularisation and grant of occupancy/leasehold rights, and directions restraining the State and its agents from interfering with their enjoyment.

The Court dismissed the petition and held that Article 32 did not permit the relief sought to declare a High Court judgment illegal. The Court emphasised that remedies lay in recall or under Article 136, and clarified that the petitioners could pursue alternative remedies under law. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our considered opinion, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal. If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court." The Court further recorded: "The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioners to avail such other remedy as may be available under law."

Background The petition arose after a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019 by an order dated July 25, 2024 (Annexure P‑1). The petitioners later approached this Court under Article 32, contending that the High Court's decision had been rendered without hearing necessary parties and seeking directions for survey, regularisation and protection of possession of apartments allegedly built on government land by the 10th respondent. The petition record showed that a Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court judgment had been dismissed by this Court on December 20, 2024 (Annexure P‑2), and an application for modification of the High Court judgment had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on December 17, 2024 (Annexure P‑3).

The Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 32 and procedural remedies available to parties aggrieved by High Court orders. The Court found that declaring a High Court judgment "illegal" was not a relief properly grantable in a petition under Article 32 in the circumstances presented, and explained that the appropriate course for parties claiming they had not been heard was to move for recall of the judgment or to seek special leave under Article 136. The petition was dismissed and the Court disposed of pending applications, while expressly leaving the petitioners free to pursue other remedies available under law. No interim reliefs were granted.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 77 (Writ Petition (Civil) D No.1995/2025) Case Title: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment]