Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

P. ASHOKAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Decided
6 February 1998
Judges listed
M.M. PUNCHHI, B.N. KIRPAL, M. SRINIVASAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 717 · 1998 INSC 73
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

On merits, we find no case to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Besides a three Judge Bench decision of this Court, authored by J.S. Verma, J. (as Hon'ble the Ex-Chief Justice then was) in Khoday Distilleries Limited and Anr. v. The Rejistrar General, Supreme Court of India, [1996] 3 SCC The Page 114 has ruled as follows:

p. 717, margin F

"In a case like the present, where in substance the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there cari be no question of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on tlie basis of its effect in accordance A with law. Frequent resort to the decision in Antu lay in such situations is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasis tl1is fact."

pp. 717–718, margin G

" ' We are in agreement with such view . The writ petition is dismissed.

p. 718

Jc R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 718

,1

p. 718