ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR.

[2023] 10 S.C.R.

AASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENTSHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHARMUNDRA & ORS.

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARYBGENERAL & ANR.

(Miscellaneous Application D.No. 5112 of 2023)

(Writ Petition (C) No. 59/2013)

FEBRUARY 08, 2023C

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Judgments/Orders – Correction of – [2023] 10 SCR 289 –Separate judgments of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’bleMrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – Judgments were passed disposingDof Writ Petition(C) No.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition– Substantial amendments were made to the original writ petitionshowever, such amendments were not brought to the notice of SupremeCourt – As result, the unamended writ petition was taken intoconsideration for the purpose of referring to the pleadings in theJudgment of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – PresentEMiscellaneous Applications filed seeking correction of certainphrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of the judgment of Hon’bleMrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – Corrections accordingly made –Income Tax Act, 1961 – Explanation to Clause 26 (AAA) of s.10 –Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 – Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961.

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION : MiscellaneousFApplication D.No.5112 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.01.2023 of the SupremeCourt of India in W.P. (C) No.59 of 2013.

With

GMiscellaneous Application D.No.5236 of 2023 In Writ Petition(C) No.59 of 2013, Miscellaneous Application D.No.5645 of 2023 InWrit Petition (C) No.59 of 2013 And Review Petition (C) D.Nos. 5450,5075, 5065 of 2023

Tushar Mehta, SG, N Venkataraman, A.S.G., C. S. Vaidyanathan,HDr. (Mrs.) Doma T. Bhutia, Sanjay R. Hegde, Pradeep Rai, Sr. Adv.,

R Rao, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, C. Bharati, Devashish Bharukha, PranayRanjan, Vikrant Yadav, Rajat Nair, Sughosh Subramanium, BhuvanKapoor, Kanu Agrawal, Digvijay Dam, Madhav Sinhal, Raj BahadurYadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, A. K. Sharma, Ms. Pooja Dhar, SameerAbhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, RudroChatterjee, Vivek Basneit, Atul Arora, Masoom Raj Singh, Shariq Nishar,Md. Tanvir, Anas Tanwir, Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, SenthilJagadeesan, Ms. Shivani Vij, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Ms. Rajshree Rai,Vinay Kumar, Arnav Mittal, Ms. Ritika Gaur, Ms. Banshika Garg,Shashank Rai, Vipin Kumar Bharti, Aishwarya Pratap Shahi, M/s.Arputham Aruna and Co, Narendra Kumar, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

ORDER

Petitioner No.4, the Union of India as well as the State of Sikkimhave filed applications seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs10(a) and 77 of my judgment (B.V. Nagarathna, J) disposing of WritPetition (C) NO.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition on13.01.2023.

It is noted that, in the said writ petition(s), there was an amendedwrit petition filed, pursuant to an application seeking amendment, namely,I.A. No.3A of 2013, being allowed on 02.08.2013 and the petitionersbeing granted leave to file the amended writ petition vide paragraphs4(a) to 4(y) of I.A.No.3A of 2013. Consequently, the amendments weremade in the Writ Petition.

Unfortunately, learned senior counsel appearing for the writpetitioners and other counsel appearing for the respective parties in thesaid matter did not bring to the notice of this Court the aforesaidsubstantial amendments made to the original writ petition(s). It was,infact, their duty to bring to the notice of this Court the said amendments,which were twenty five in number. As result, the unamended writpetition has been taken into consideration for the purpose of referring tothe pleadings in the judgment of B.V. Nagarathna, J. Now, MiscellaneousApplications have been filed seeking correction of the judgment as if theerror has occurred from the side of the Court by ignoring the fact thatthe amendments brought to the original writ petition(s) were not broughtto the notice of this Court!ABC

AHowever, having heard learned Solicitor General, learned SeniorAdvocates and all other learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties, we think it is just and proper and in the interest of justice tocorrect certain phrases/portions in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of thejudgment of B.V. Nagarathna, J. by making the following corrections -

1. In Para 10 (a), the sentence, “Therefore, there was nodifference made out between the original inhabitants ofSikkim, namely, the Bhutia-Lepchas and the persons offoreign origin settled in Sikkim like the Nepalis or persons ofIndian origin who had settled down in Sikkim generationsback” stands deleted.

2. It is further submitted that since this Court has held that theExplanation to Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961is discriminatory against persons such as the petitioners, the benefitof the exemption must be given from the day the said Explanationwas inserted to the said Act. Under the circumstances, theDfollowing expression, at page 115, in para 77 namely, “from thecurrent financial year i.e., 1[st] April, 2022 onwards” standsdeleted and there shall be full stop after the word “provision”.

Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalfof the Union of India and Shri C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned SeniorEAdvocate appearing on behalf of the State have also requested to makesuitable observations that this Court has not expressed anything on thevalidity or interpretation of Article 371-F of the Constitution of India.No such clarification is required at all as the validity or interpretation ofArticle 371-F of the Constitution of India was not the subject matterbefore this Court at all.F

It is further clarified that the definition of Sikkimese and thereference to Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 and Sikkim subject Rules,1961 though repealed, are relevant for the purpose of the Explanation toClause 26 (AAA) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only.

GThe Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of in the aforesaidterms.

In view of the above, Review Petition (C) D. Nos. 5450, 5075and 5065 of 2023 stand disposed of.

All pending applications, including applications for intervention andHclarification, also stand disposed of.

This order shall be read as part and parcel of judgment dated 13[th]January, 2023.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

M.As disposed of.