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. 368, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Holding
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
368
ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT
SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR
MUNDRA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY
GENERAL & ANR.
(Miscellaneous Application D.No. 5112 of 2023)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 59/2013)
FEBRUARY 08, 2023
[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’ble
Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna –  Judgments were passed disposing
of Writ Petition(C) No.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition
– Substantial amendments were made to the original writ petitions
however, such amendments were not brought to the notice of Supreme
Court – As a result, the unamended writ petition was taken into
consideration for the purpose of referring to the pleadings in the
Judgment of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna  – Present
Miscellaneous Applications filed seeking correction of certain
phrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of the judgment of Hon’ble
Mrs. 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 :  Miscellaneous
Application D.No.5112 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.01.2023 of the Supreme
Court of India in W.P. (C) No.59 of 2013.
With
Miscellaneous Application D.No.5236 of 2023 In Writ Petition
(C) No.59 of 2013, Miscellaneous Application D.No.5645 of 2023 In
Writ 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,
Dr. (Mrs.) Doma T. Bhutia, Sanjay R. Hegde, Pradeep Rai, Sr. Adv., H
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 368 : 2023 INSC 106
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
R Rao, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, C. Bharati, Devashish Bharukha,   Pranay
Ranjan, Vikrant Yadav, Rajat Nair, Sughosh Subramanium, Bhuvan
Kapoor, Kanu Agrawal, Digvijay Dam, Madhav Sinhal, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, A. K. Sharma, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Sameer
Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Rudro
Chatterjee, Vivek Basneit, Atul Arora, Masoom Raj Singh, Shariq Nishar,
Md. Tanvir, Anas Tanwir, Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Senthil
Jagadeesan, 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. for
the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Petitioner No.4, the Union of India as well as the State of Sikkim
have filed applications seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs
10(a) and 77 of my judgment (B.V. Nagarathna, J) disposing of Writ
Petition (C) NO.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition on
13.01.2023.
It is noted that, in the said writ petition(s), there was an amended
writ petition filed, pursuant to an application seeking amendment, namely,
I.A. No.3A of 2013, being allowed on 02.08.2013 and the petitioners
being granted leave to file the amended writ petition vide paragraphs
4(a) to 4(y) of I.A.No.3A of 2013. Consequently, the amendments were
made in the Writ Petition.
Unfortunately, learned senior
counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners and other counsel appearing for the respective parties in the
said matter did not bring to the notice of this Court the aforesaid
substantial 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 a result, the unamended writ
petition has been taken into consideration for the purpose of referring to
the pleadings in the judgment of B.V. Nagarathna, J. Now, Miscellaneous
Applications have been filed seeking correction of the judgment as if the
error has occurred from the side of the Court by ignoring the fact that
the amendments brought to the original writ petition(s) were not brought
to the notice of this Court!
ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT v.
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
However, having heard learned Solicitor General, learned Senior
Advocates and all other learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, we think it is just and proper and in the interest of justice to
correct certain phrases/portions in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of the
judgment of B.V. Nagarathna, J. by making the following corrections -
1. In Para 10 (a), the sentence, “Therefore, there was no
difference made out between the original inhabitants of
Sikkim, namely, the Bhutia-Lepchas and   the   persons of
foreign origin settled in Sikkim like the Nepalis or persons of
Indian origin who had settled down in Sikkim generations
back” stands deleted.
2. It is further submitted that since this Court has held that the
Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
is discriminatory against persons such as the petitioners, the benefit
of the exemption must be given from the day the said Explanation
was inserted to the said Act. Under the circumstances, the
following expression, at page 115, in para 77 namely, “from the
current financial year i.e., 1st April, 2022 onwards” stands
deleted and there shall be a full stop after the word “provision”.
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf
of the Union of India and Shri C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State have also requested to make
suitable observations that this Court has not expressed anything
on the
validity or interpretation of Article 371-F of the Constitution of India.
No such clarification is required at all as the validity or interpretation of
Article 371-F of the Constitution of India was not the subject matter
before this Court at all.
It is further clarified that the definition of Sikkimese and the
reference to Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 and Sikkim subject Rules,
1961 though repealed, are relevant for the purpose of the Explanation to
Clause 26 (AAA) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only.
The Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
In view of the above, Review Petition (C) D. Nos. 5450, 5075
and 5065 of 2023 stand disposed of.
All pending applications, including applications for intervention and
clarification, also stand disposed of.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
371
This order shall be read as part and parcel of judgment dated 13th
January, 2023.
Divya Pandey
M.As disposed of.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)
ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT v.
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL