(a) Complete contrary scenario were admitted as appears from the observations made at Para 62, 68 and 69 by Judgment dated 10 the April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC interalia that "does it, however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court depicts that the same stands in violation of natural justice adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the same depicts manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice", with contrary observations under Para 7 observed interalia that under Article 32, 132, 133, 134, 136, 226 and 12 of the Constitution of India Supreme Court cannot issue a Writ to a High Court or one Bench of Supreme Court cannot issue a writ to another Bench of the Supreme Court even if the latter is a smaller one—More so because neither a Judicial order passed by a superior court can be said to be violative of fundamental rights nor are the superior courts "State" within the meaning of Art 12.

(d) Application of the Principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court defined under Article 147, reduced the efficacy of the Supreme Court substantially, particularly with regards to matters of infringement of fundamental rights and certainly caused as hands off from the Responsibility laid down upon the Supreme Court as Guardian, Guarantor and Watchdog-Protector of the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution interalia as were hold by Six Judge Bench (AIR:1950,Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), that: "The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights" and now settled towards complete negative directions that the "………… it is a settled position in law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III", completely inconsistent with the object, scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution, and caused hands off from such responsibility laid upon the Supreme Court by the founding fathers, as will evident from my matters. Resultantly completely reversed observation from such responsibility were appeared at Para 58 of the aforesaid Judgment interalia that "There is not denial of the fact that the right exists to move this Court for enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and stands conferred in terms of Article 32 and the language used therein is of widest possible amplitude but as regards the issuance of writs, the view seems to be rather well settled, in the negative",

(e) Quite different observations were made in favour to ensure justice at Para 42 of the said Judgment dated 10^th April 2002, interalia that "The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment". Although, Judgment moved to render to justice but failed to ensure rendering of Justice, under the impact of principle of finality of final order of Supreme Court, with regards to infringement of the Fundamental Rights.