M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 25 April 2019

M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR.

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2019)

APRIL 25, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Judgments/Orders – Statement made by the counsel on thebasis of incorrect/wrong briefing – Respondent No.3 filed writpetition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India & Another)challenging the order dated 30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016) –High Court set aside the order dated 30.06.2016 on basis of thestatement made by the counsel for the Union of India – Appellantsfiled appeal in the Supreme Court against the order passed by theHigh Court – In that pending appeal, Union of India filed I.A. fordirections – It was stated in I.A., that the statement made by thecounsel was on the basis of incorrect/wrong briefing made to himby the concerned official – Held: Considering the grounds nowraised by the Union of India and the fact that the High Court didnot decide the writ petition on merits and disposed it of on thestatement made by the counsel for the Union of India, which wasbased on incorrect briefing – In the interest of all the partiesconcerned, case remanded to the High Court to hear the writ petitionafresh and dispose it of on merits in accordance with law.

Allowing the I.A. and Appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. During the course of submissions, it is pointedout that in another batch of petitions led by W.P. No.7537 of 2018(M/s Standard Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India), the HighCourt passed a detailed order on 06.02.2019 and set aside theimpugned order dated 30.06.2016 on merits. Be that as it may,this Court need not enter into any other aspect of the matterbecause herein, the recall is sought essentially on the groundthat an incorrect statement was made by the counsel, whoappeared for the Union of India in the said writ petition, whichled for its disposal wrongly. It is stated therein that the statement

1059

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awas made by the counsel on the basis of incorrect/wrong briefingmade to him by the concerned official. [Para 12][1062-C-E]

2. Keeping in view the grounds now raised by the Unionof India and further the fact that the high court did not decide thewrit petition on merits but disposed it of on the statement madeBby the counsel for the Union of India, which was based on incorrectbriefing, it would be just and proper and in the interest of all theparties concerned that the writ petition is heard afresh and isdisposed of on its merits in accordance with law by the High Court.Thus, the writ petition (No.5734 of 2016) filed by respondentNo.3 herein before the High Court, out of which this appeal arises,Cis restored to its original number before the High Court.[Paras 15 and 16][1062-G-H; 1063-A-B]

M/s Standard Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India(W.P. No.7537 of 2018 decided by the High Court ofDelhi on 06.02.2019) – referred to.DCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4283of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5734 of 2016.

EDushyant Dave, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Aniruddha Deshmukh, NikhilGoel, Advs. for the Appellants.

Dhruv Gautam, Ms. Neha Agarwal, Jasmeet Singh, KumarParimal, Sarad Kr. Singhania, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Arvind KumarSharma, Advs. for the Respondents.

F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 09.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi inGWrit Petition (C) No.5734 of 2016 whereby the High Court disposed ofthe said writ petition filed by respondent No.3 herein (original writpetitioner before the High Court) against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein(Union of India and another) and set aside the order dated30.06.2016(notified on 06.07.2016).

H

3. Heard learned counsel on IA No.16352 of 2018.

4. This is an application made by the Union of India through theUnder Secretary, Ministry of Mines for appropriate directions and fordisposal of the appeal.

5. A few facts need mention for the disposal of the said applicationso also the appeal, which involves a short point.

6. By impugned order, the High Court disposed of writ petitionNo.5734 of 2016 filed by respondent No.3 herein (original writ petitionerbefore the High Court) against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (Union ofIndia and another).

7. The challenge in the said writ petition was to an order dated30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016) issued by the respondents of thewrit petition, i.e., Union of India through its concerned Ministry.

8. It is not in dispute that the High Court by impugned order dated09.11.2017 disposed of the writ petition and set aside the order dated30.06.2016 which was impugned in the writ petition on the basis ofstatement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

9. In other words, the High Court did not consider necessary todecide the writ petition on the merits of the controversy in the light of thestatement made by the learned counsel, who appeared for the Union ofIndia. It is clear from Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order quotedinfra:

“9. In view of his aforesaid statement, the impugned orderdated 30.06.2016 notified on 06.07.2016 is set aside. Therespondents would take further steps to process the grantof Exploration License pursuant to the order dated05.04.2011 in accordance with law.

10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed an opinionon the merits of the dispute between the parties and theabove order has been passed solely on the basis of thestatement made on behalf of respondents.”

10. It is this order, which is now impugned by the appellant byfiling the present special leave to appeal. Since the appellants were notparties to the writ petition, they sought leave to file the present special A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aleave to appeal to question the legality and correctness of the impugnedorder in the present appeal.

11. It is brought to the notice of the Court in the application underconsideration (IA No.16352/2018) that the Union of India (respondentsof the writ petition) have filed a review petition (103/2018) in the HighBCourt against the impugned order dated 09.11.2017 passed in writ petitionNo.5734/2016, which is now the subject matter of the present specialleave to appeal, praying therein to recall the order dated 09.11.2017.The review petition is pending.

12. During the course of submissions, it has also been pointed outCthat in another batch of petitions led by W.P. No.7537 of 2018 (M/sStandard Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India), the High Courtpassed a detailed order on 06.02.2019 and set aside the impugned orderdated 30.06.2016 on merits. Be that as it may, we need not enter intoany other aspect of the matter because herein, the recall is soughtessentially on the ground that an incorrect statement was made by theDlearned counsel, who appeared for the Union of India in the said writpetition, which led for its disposal wrongly. It is stated therein that thestatement 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 pendencyEof the appeal and subsequent to passing of the impugned order, certainevents have also taken place, therefore, this appeal can be disposed ofaccordingly keeping in view the subsequent events which have occurred.

14. Though the learned counsel for the parties and specially thelearned counsel for the original writ petitioner (respondent No.3 herein)Fopposed the application under consideration and urged the issues arisingin the writ petition on merits, but having heard the learned counsel forthe parties and on perusal of the entire record of the case, we are inclinedto allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore Writ PetitionNo.5734 of 2016 to its original number before the High Court for itsGfresh disposal in accordance with law on merits.

15. In our opinion, keeping in view the grounds now raised by theUnion of India and further the fact that the High Court did not decide thewrit petition on merits but disposed it of on the statement made by thelearned counsel for the Union of India, which was based on incorrect H

M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OFINDIA & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

briefing, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of all theparties concerned that the writ petition is heard afresh and is disposed ofon its merits in accordance with law by the High Court.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application made bythe Union of India (IA No.163521 of 2018) is allowed. As a consequence,the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order isset aside. The writ petition (No.5734 of 2016) filed by respondent No.3herein before the High Court, out of which this appeal arises, is restoredto its original number before the High Court.

17. In the light of this order, the review petition filed by the Unionof India (No.103/2018) stands disposed of.

18. All the parties are granted liberty to amend their respectivepleadings before the High Court in the aforementioned writ petition toenable the High Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits inaccordance with law.

19. We, however, make it clear that we have not examined thecase of the parties on merits having formed an opinion to remand thecase to the High Court on the grounds mentioned above and, therefore,the High Court will decide the writ petition without being influenced byany observations made this Court on merit in this order.

Ankit Gyan

I.A. and Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H