Amitava Roy JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The issue that had seen the end after the day's drill at 4.15 p.m. yesterday, i.e., 29.07.2015, appears to have unending character because precisely after ten hours, about 3.15 a.m. on 30.07.2015, it has risen like a phoenix possibly harbouring the idea that it has the potentiality to urge for a second lease of life as put forth by Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior Counsel and Mr. Yug Chaudhry, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, stating that the assail has become inevitable after the President of India in exercise of his power Under Article 72 of the Constitution has rejected the mercy petition preferred by the Petitioner. Be it stated, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that by virtue of the rejection of the mercy petition, the death warrant issued on 30.4.2015 would be executed today, without waiting for 14 days, and hence, there should be a grant of stay.
2. We may mention that, before the ink in the earlier judgment has dried up, the present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the legal justifiability of the execution warrant dated 30.04.2015 issued by the Presiding officer, Designated TADA Court, Mumbai, for execution of the Petitioner at 7.00 a.m. on 30.07.2015 and further to direct the stay of the Petitioner's execution till the instant writ petition is disposed of.
3. We do not have to adumbrate the facts in entirety as the facts of the instant case have been elaborately stated in W.P. (Crl.) No. 129 of 2015 which has been dismissed on 29.07.2015. In the earlier writ petition, the prayer, in quintessentially, was made for setting aside the death warrant issued by the Designated TADA Court, Mumbai. The grounds were many but we must state with certitude that they did not find favour with us. Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel would submit that it might appear that the prayers in the present petition are the same and anyone may foster the idea that an effort has been made in a contrived manner to procrastinate the date of execution of the convict, but it is not so. He would further submit that by the occurrence of subsequent events that took place after the pronouncement of the judgment, fresh grounds have emerged which could not have been conceived of at the time when the matter was argued. It is urged that though the prayer is the same, yet the grounds are totally different.
4. At this juncture, the subsequent event which has been accentuated upon by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Chaudhry, learned Counsel, needs to be noted. After we dismissed the earlier writ petition being W.P. (Crl.) No. 129 of 2015, the President of India rejected the mercy petition of the Petitioner. The fulcrum of the submission of Mr. Grover is that the Petitioner is entitled in law to challenge the same albeit on a limited ground and, therefore, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 
MANU/SC/0043/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 1 has, upon perusal of various jail manuals which exhibited discrepancies, intended to rationalise by laying down a minimum period so that the convict can make certain arrangements. To put it succinctly, when a mercy peti........