The Supreme Court has held that once a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is dismissed and a subsequent review petition before the High Court is also rejected, a second SLP challenging the same matter is not maintainable unless the Supreme Court had expressly granted liberty to approach it again.

A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra clarified that while no permission is required to seek a review before the High Court after the dismissal of an SLP by a non-speaking order, the position changes once the High Court declines to exercise its review jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the Court observed, it would neither be just nor proper to allow the same party to re-approach the Supreme Court in the absence of specific liberty granted earlier.

The Bench observed that although a litigant is free to pursue a review before the High Court after the Supreme Court dismisses an SLP simpliciter, if the review is rejected, the matter attains finality. Permitting a second SLP thereafter, without express liberty, would amount to reopening a concluded issue.

The controversy in the present case traces back to 2010, when retired employees of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking pensionary benefits. Their claim was allowed by a Single Judge in 2012, but the judgment was set aside by a Division Bench in 2014 on the ground of maintainability.

In 2022, the Supreme Court revived the Letters Patent Appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for adjudication on merits. Pursuant to this, the Division Bench, in February 2024, ruled in favour of the pensioners. The Bank’s challenge to this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 23, 2024, through a non-speaking order, while leaving the question of law open.

Thereafter, the Bank withdrew its recall application before the Supreme Court, with liberty limited to pursuing a review before the High Court. When the High Court dismissed the review petition in April 2025, the Bank once again approached the Supreme Court by filing a fresh SLP, leading to the present proceedings.

Dismissing the second SLP, the Supreme Court reiterated that in the absence of express liberty reserved at the time of dismissal of the first SLP, a second SLP is barred after the failure of a review petition. The Court clarified that only where liberty is specifically granted to re-agitate the issue before the Supreme Court can a subsequent SLP be entertained.

Since the first SLP had been dismissed by a non-speaking order without reserving any such liberty, the Court held that it was impermissible for the Bank to re-open the matter by filing a second SLP after the High Court had rejected the review petition. The issue, the Court held, had attained finality.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the second SLP.

Cause Title:
Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors.