ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                            [2016) 2 S.C.R. 34


A             ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.
                                    v.
                       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 2405 of2016)
B                         FEBRUARY 29, 2016
    [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
         Practice and Procedure: High Court while disposing of
  the appellants writ petition granted liberty to file representation
  to the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) but at the
c same    time passed a11 order that the appellants will have no
  liberty to move the High Court again for the same cause of action
  raised therein - Propriety of High Court :S order - Held: A right to
  prosecute the legal remedy in the court of law to challenge any
  decision of the State or/and its agency is a valuable legal right of
D the citizen and the High Court could not take away such right from
  the appellant without assigning any reason - Appellant has
  every right to take recourse to all legal remedies as are available
  to him in law in the event a11y adverse order is passed on his
  representation or when no orders are passed on his
  representation once made.
E
         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD: 1. The High Court having rightly granted
    indulgence to the appellant to file the representation to the
    NTPC for ventilating his grievance, should have also granted
F   liberty to the appellant to tak•i recourse to all legal remedies to
    challenge the decision once taken on his representation, if
    occasion so arises. [Para 8] [36-D]
           2. A right to prosecute the legal remedy in the court of
    law to challenge any decision of the State or/and its agency is a
G   valuable legal right of the citizen and the High Court could not
    take away such right from the appellant without assigning any
    reason. There is apparently no justifiable reason to deny the
    appellant from taking recourse to the legal remedies to prosecute
    his grievance in a Court oflaw in relation to the dispute, which
    is the subject matter of the representation in case if occasion
H
                                    34
   ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA                                   35



arises in future. That part of the impugned order, which deprives              A
the appellant to move to the Court again in the event his
representation is decided against him by the NTPC is set aside.
(Paras 9, 10] (36-E-F]
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2405
OF2016                                                                         B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 5402 of 2015
      Manu Shanker Mishra, Nishant Kumar, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               c
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Delay in filing special
leave petition is condoned. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal is filed againsfthe final judgment and order dated
08.04.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CW JC No. 5402
of2015 whereby the High Court while disposing of the appellant's writ          D
petition granted liberty to file representation to the National Thermal
Power Corporation (NTPC) but at the same time passed an-order that
the appellants will have no liberty to move the High Court again forthe
same cause of action raised therein.
      3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and· have             E
perused the record of the case.
       4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined
to dispose of this appeal after granting leave at the admission stage itself
as we are of the view that the same can be disposed of without notice to
the other side.                                                                F
      5. In the light of the order that we have pa_ssed, it is neither
necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail and as mentioned
above nor necessary to issue notice of this appeal to the other side.
      6. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads as under:
                                                                               G
             "After some arguments, learned counsel for the
       petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application
       in order to enable the petitioners to file representation
       before the competent authority of the National Thermal
       Power Corporation (NTPC). While this Court would accord
                                                                               H
36              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2016] 2 S.C.R.



A          such leave to the petitioner but it is made clear that the
           petitioners will have now no liberty to move this Court again
           for the same cause of action raised herein."
           7. The only grievance oflearned counsel for the appellant is that
     the High Court having rightly granted liberty to the appellant to file the
B    representation for ventilating his grievance before the NTPC erred in
     taking away his right to prosecute his grievance, if occasion arises in
     future depending upon the outcome of his representation. It is his
     submission that the appellant has every right to take recourse to all legal
     remedies as are available to him in law in the event any adverse order is
     passed on his representation or when no orders are passed on his
c    representation once made. We find force in this submission.
            8. In our considered view, the High Court having rightly granted
     indulgence to the appellant to file the representation to the NTPC for
     ventilating his grievance, should have also granted liberty to the appellant
     to take recourse to all legal remedies to challenge the decision once
D    taken on his representation, if occasion so arises.
            9. A right to prosecute the legal remedy in the court of law to
     challenge any decision of the State or/and its agency is a valuable legal
     right of the citizen and the High Court could not take away such right
     from the appellant without assigning any reason. There is apparently no
E    justifiable reason to deny the appellant from taking recourse to the legal
     remedies to prosecute his grievance in a Court oflaw in relation to the
     dispute, which is the subject matter of the representation in case ifoccasion
     arises in future.
            10. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal in
F    part and set aside that part of the impugned order, which deprives the
     appellant to move to the Court again in the event his representation is
     decided against him by the NTPC.
             11. We, therefore, grant the appellant further liberty to take recourse
     to all legal remedies, as may be available to him in Jaw, by approaching
G    appropriate Court to ventilate his grievance, if occasion arises, in relation
     to the dispute for which he is granted liberty by the High Court to file the
     representation.
     Dcvika Gujral                                             Appeal partly allowed.