Supreme Court of India
SURESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. versus SUNDEEP BHUTORIA on 21 March 2022
SURESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
v.
SUNDEEP BHUTORIA
(Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 22)
MARCH 21, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation: Instant matter was registered as PILby High Court – Therefore, it ought to be dealt with as a non-adversarial litigation – Respondent in the instant appeal, who issaid to have brought certain facts to the notice of the High Court,is, otherwise, standing in the capacity of a disputant qua theappellants – That being the position, the observations made inparagraph 17 of the order impugned, where the High Court haspermitted the respondent to assist the Court and thereby haspractically assigned him the role of an amicus, do not appearcompatible with the requirements of a PIL – Therefore, paragraph17 of the impugned order is annulled – In other words, the matter isleft open to be dealt with as a PIL; and all the relevant aspects ofthe matter are left open for the examination by the High Court withthe assistance of amicus curiae, who has also been appointed interms of paragraph 18 of the order impugned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2086of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2022 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in Letter Patent Appeal No.126 of 2022.
Pallav Shishodia, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Advs., Surjendu SankarDas, Ms. Tanya Tikiya, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gopal Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ashok Kumar Jain, AvneeshGarg, Mrs. Meenakshi Jain, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
875
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AThe following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Having heard Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel forBthe appellants and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counselfor the sole respondent, we are not inclined to consider interference inthe core of the questioned part of impugned order dated 17.02.2022(from paragraph 11 onwards), insofar as the High Court has consideredit proper to direct registration of a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’)concerning the association in question, i.e., Indian Federation of UnitedCNations Association, particularly having regard to the prima facieobservations of the High Court, indicating the reasons for registeringsuch a PIL after disposal of the main matter involved in LPA No. 126 of2022.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has attempted toDmake several submissions as regards the stand of appellants and thatthe dispute between them and the respondent is pending in Civil Suit No.554 of 2019 in the Court of Additional District Judge-3, South District,Saket Courts, New Delhi. However, we are of the view that all suchsubmissions and all the relevant facts and factors which, in the primaEfacie opinion of the High Court require clarification, ought to be projectedbefore the High Court. Thus, we leave it open for the appellants to makeall the appropriate submissions before the High Court as regards theirresponse to the observations in the order impugned as also theirpropositions/objections.4. Even when we are not inclined to interfere with the matter atFthis stage, while leaving it open for the appellants to make all the relevantsubmissions before the High Court, we are of the view that when theHigh Court has registered the matter as a PIL, it ought to be dealt withas a non-adversarial litigation.5. In this context, noticeable it is that the respondent of the presentGappeal, who is said to have brought certain facts to the notice of theHigh Court, is, otherwise, standing in the capacity of a disputant qua thepresent appellants. That being the position, the observations made inparagraph 17 of the order impugned, where the High Court has permittedthe respondent to assist the Court and thereby has practically assignedH
him the role of an amicus, do not appear compatible with the requirementsof a PIL.
A
6. Therefore, we are inclined to annul the said paragraph 17 ofthe impugned order. In other words, we leave the matter open to bedealt with as a PIL; and all the relevant aspects of the matter are leftopen for the examination by the High Court with the assistance of amicusBcuriae, who has also been appointed in terms of paragraph 18 of theorder impugned.
7. Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal stands disposedof at this stage itself.
C
8. It goes without saying that we have not expressed any opinionon the merits of the case either way.
Devika Gujral
Appeal disposed of.
D
E
F
G
H