<p>The Supreme Court has refused to re-examine its judgement and expunge the adverse remarks made in it against Medha Patkar-led Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) on the issue of land acquisition for Omkareshwar Dam project in Madhya Pradesh.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The apex court dismissed the review petitions filed by the NBA saying that the May 11, 2011 judgement "does not suffer from any mistake" and "no ground is made out" for review of the September 29, 2011 order by which it had declined to expunge the adverse remarks against the NBA in the verdict.<br /><br />While dismissing the petitions seeking review of the May 11, 2011 judgement, a bench of justices R M Lodha, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan on May 3 said, "We have carefully considered the review petitions and the available material. The above judgement does not suffer from any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting any review."<br />Disallowing the NBA's plea against the September 29, 2011 order, the bench said, "We have carefully considered the review petitions and the available material. No ground is made out for the review of the said order."<br /><br />The NGO had sought review of the verdict by which the apex court had quashed the February 21, 2008 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court treating every major member of a family as a separate unit allotment of land for rehabilitation.<br /><br />The NBA had also sought reconsideration of the apex court's September 29, 2011 order by which its application against the May 11, 2001 verdict containing adverse remarks for misleading a three-judge bench was dismissed.<br /><br />The court had lashed out at the NGO for making false statements in the affidavit for securing favourable order and had also asked other courts across the country to be cautious in examining NBA's petitions.The apex court which had examined the NBA's applications for expunging the remarks, had disposed them by modifying its observations in the September 29 order.<br /><br />"We reach the inescapable conclusion that the NBA has not acted with a sense of responsibility and not taken appropriate pleadings as required in law."<br /><br />"However, in a PIL, the court has to strike a balance between the interests of the parties. The court has to take into consideration the pitiable condition of oustees, their poverty, inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent of backwardness, unawareness also.<br /><br />"It is desirable that in future the court must view presentation of any matter by the NBA with caution and care insisting on proper pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fairly and should insist for an affidavit of some responsible person in support of facts contained therein," the bench had said in its 14-page order.<br /><br />The bench modified its remarks in which it had said in case it (court) has any doubt, it could "refuse to entertain the NBA".<br /><br />The bench considered the "remorse" expressed by the counsel on behalf of the NBA that "it ought to have acted with more responsibility"</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has refused to re-examine its judgement and expunge the adverse remarks made in it against Medha Patkar-led Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) on the issue of land acquisition for Omkareshwar Dam project in Madhya Pradesh.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The apex court dismissed the review petitions filed by the NBA saying that the May 11, 2011 judgement "does not suffer from any mistake" and "no ground is made out" for review of the September 29, 2011 order by which it had declined to expunge the adverse remarks against the NBA in the verdict.<br /><br />While dismissing the petitions seeking review of the May 11, 2011 judgement, a bench of justices R M Lodha, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan on May 3 said, "We have carefully considered the review petitions and the available material. The above judgement does not suffer from any mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting any review."<br />Disallowing the NBA's plea against the September 29, 2011 order, the bench said, "We have carefully considered the review petitions and the available material. No ground is made out for the review of the said order."<br /><br />The NGO had sought review of the verdict by which the apex court had quashed the February 21, 2008 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court treating every major member of a family as a separate unit allotment of land for rehabilitation.<br /><br />The NBA had also sought reconsideration of the apex court's September 29, 2011 order by which its application against the May 11, 2001 verdict containing adverse remarks for misleading a three-judge bench was dismissed.<br /><br />The court had lashed out at the NGO for making false statements in the affidavit for securing favourable order and had also asked other courts across the country to be cautious in examining NBA's petitions.The apex court which had examined the NBA's applications for expunging the remarks, had disposed them by modifying its observations in the September 29 order.<br /><br />"We reach the inescapable conclusion that the NBA has not acted with a sense of responsibility and not taken appropriate pleadings as required in law."<br /><br />"However, in a PIL, the court has to strike a balance between the interests of the parties. The court has to take into consideration the pitiable condition of oustees, their poverty, inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent of backwardness, unawareness also.<br /><br />"It is desirable that in future the court must view presentation of any matter by the NBA with caution and care insisting on proper pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fairly and should insist for an affidavit of some responsible person in support of facts contained therein," the bench had said in its 14-page order.<br /><br />The bench modified its remarks in which it had said in case it (court) has any doubt, it could "refuse to entertain the NBA".<br /><br />The bench considered the "remorse" expressed by the counsel on behalf of the NBA that "it ought to have acted with more responsibility"</p>