Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4283 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2348 of 2018)
M/s Trimex Sands Pvt. Limited
& Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 09.11.2017 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No.5734 of 2016 whereby the High
Court disposed of the said writ petition filed by
Signature Not Verified
respondent No.3 herein (original writ petitioner
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.04.25
16:48:12 IST
Reason:
before the High Court) against respondent Nos.1
1
and 2 herein (Union of India and another) and set
aside the order dated 30.06.2016(notified on
06.07.2016).
3. Heard learned counsel on IA No.16352 of
2018.
4. This is an application made by the Union of
India through the Under Secretary, Ministry of
Mines for appropriate directions and for disposal of
the appeal.
5. A few facts need mention for the disposal of
the said application so also the appeal, which
involves a short point.
6. By impugned order, the High Court disposed of
writ petition No.5734 of 2016 filed by respondent
No.3 herein (original writ petitioner before the High
Court) against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein
(Union of India and another).
7. The challenge in the said writ petition was to
an order dated 30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016)
2
issued by the respondents of the writ petition, i.e.,
Union of India through its concerned Ministry.
8. It is not in dispute that the High Court by
impugned order dated 09.11.2017 disposed of the
writ petition and set aside the order dated
30.06.2016 which was impugned in the writ petition
on the basis of statement made by the learned
counsel appearing for the Union of India.
9. In other words, the High Court did not
consider necessary to decide the writ petition on the
merits of the controversy in the light of the
statement made by the learned counsel, who
appeared for the Union of India. It is clear from
Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order quoted infra :
“9. In view of his aforesaid statement, the
impugned order dated 30.06.2016 notified on
06.07.2016 is set aside. The respondents
would take further steps to process the grant
of Exploration License pursuant to the order
dated 05.04.2011 in accordance with law.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not
expressed an opinion on the merits of the
3
dispute between the parties and the above
order has been passed solely on the basis of
the statement made on behalf of
respondents.”
10. It is this order, which is now impugned by the
appellant by filing the present special leave to
appeal. Since the appellants were not parties to the
writ petition, they sought leave to file the present
special leave to appeal to question the legality and
correctness of the impugned order in the present
appeal.
11. It is brought to the notice of the Court in the
application under consideration (IA No.16352/2018)
that the Union of India (respondents of the writ
petition) have filed a review petition (103/2018) in
the High Court against the impugned order dated
09.11.2017 passed in writ petition No.5734/2016,
which is now the subject matter of the present
special leave to appeal, praying therein to recall the
4
order dated 09.11.2017. The review petition is
pending.
12. During the course of submissions, it has also
been pointed out that in another batch of petitions
led by W.P. No.7537 of 2018 (M/s Standard
the High
Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India),
Court passed a detailed order on 06.02.2019 and
set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 on
merits. Be that as it may, we need not enter into
any other aspect of the matter because herein, the
recall is sought essentially on the ground that an
incorrect statement was made by the learned
counsel, who appeared for the Union of India in the
said writ petition, which led for its disposal wrongly.
It is stated therein that the statement was made by
the learned counsel on the basis of incorrect/wrong
briefing made to him by the concerned official.
13. A prayer is, therefore, made that because
during the pendency of the appeal and subsequent
5
to passing of the impugned order, certain events
have also taken place, therefore, this appeal can be
disposed of accordingly keeping in view the
subsequent events which have occurred.
14. Though the learned counsel for the parties and
specially the learned counsel for the original writ
petitioner (respondent No.3 herein) opposed the
application under consideration and urged the
issues arising in the writ petition on merits, but
having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the entire record of the case, we are
inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned
order and restore Writ Petition No.5734 of 2016 to
its original number before the High Court for its
fresh disposal in accordance with law on merits.
15. In our opinion, keeping in view the grounds
now raised by the Union of India and further the
fact that the High Court did not decide the writ
petition on merits but disposed it of on the
6
statement made by the learned counsel for the
Union of India, which was based on incorrect
briefing, we consider it just and proper and in the
interest of all the parties concerned that the writ
petition is heard afresh and is disposed of on its
merits in accordance with law by the High Court.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
application made by the Union of India (IA
No.163521 of 2018) is allowed. As a consequence,
the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition
(No.5734 of 2016) filed by respondent No.3 herein
before the High Court, out of which this appeal
arises, is restored to its original number before the
High Court.
17. In the light of this order, the review petition
filed by the Union of India (No.103/2018) stands
disposed of.
7
18. All the parties are granted liberty to amend
their respective pleadings before the High Court in
the aforementioned writ petition to enable the High
Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits in
accordance with law.
19. We, however, make it clear that we have not
examined the case of the parties on merits having
formed an opinion to remand the case to the High
Court on the grounds mentioned above and,
therefore, the High Court will decide the writ
petition without being influenced by any
observations made this Court on merit in this order.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 25, 2019.
8