Supreme Court of India
M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 573
- Decided
- 25 April 2019
- Bench
- ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the writ petition for fresh hearing on merits because the disposal was based on an incorrect statement and not on the merits of the case.
Summary
The Union of India issued an order on 30 June 2016 concerning an exploration licence, which was challenged by a writ petition (W.P. No.5734 of 2016). The Delhi High Court set aside that order, not on the merits, but because the counsel for the Union had made a statement that was later disclosed to be based on incorrect briefing. The Union of India filed an interlocutory application before the Supreme Court asserting that the High Court’s disposal was therefore erroneous. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court had not decided the writ petition on its merits and had relied on a faulty statement, the order must be set aside and the writ petition restored to its original number for fresh adjudication on merits. Consequently, the appeal and the IA were allowed, the impugned order was vacated, and the parties were permitted to amend pleadings before the High Court.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court order that set aside an administrative order on the basis of a counsel's statement, later found to be based on incorrect briefing, can be recalled.
- Whether the writ petition should be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal on its merits.
- Whether the Supreme Court may set aside the High Court's order without examining the substantive merits of the dispute.
Subjects
Writ petitionIncorrect statement by counselRemandHigh Court order set asideFresh hearing on meritsUnion of IndiaExploration licenceProcedural error
Judgment
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1059 1059
M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2019)
APRIL 25, 2019 B
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Judgments/Orders – Statement made by the counsel on the
basis of incorrect/wrong briefing – Respondent No.3 filed writ
C
petition 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 the
statement made by the counsel for the Union of India – Appellants
filed appeal in the Supreme Court against the order passed by the
High Court – In that pending appeal, Union of India filed I.A. for D
directions – It was stated in I.A., that the statement made by the
counsel was on the basis of incorrect/wrong briefing made to him
by the concerned official – Held: Considering the grounds now
raised by the Union of India and the fact that the High Court did
not decide the writ petition on merits and disposed it of on the
E
statement made by the counsel for the Union of India, which was
based on incorrect briefing – In the interest of all the parties
concerned, case remanded to the High Court to hear the writ petition
afresh and dispose it of on merits in accordance with law.
Allowing the I.A. and Appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. During the course of submissions, it is pointed
out 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 High
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,
this Court need not enter into any other aspect of the matter G
because herein, the recall is sought essentially on the ground
that an incorrect statement was made by the 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
H
1059
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R.
A was made by the counsel on the basis of incorrect/wrong briefing
made to him by the concerned official. [Para 12][1062-C-E]
2. 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 statement made
B by the counsel for the Union of India, which was based on incorrect
briefing, it would be 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.
Thus, the writ petition (No.5734 of 2016) filed by respondent
No.3 herein before the High Court, out of which this appeal arises,
C is 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 of
Delhi on 06.02.2019) – referred to.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4283
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5734 of 2016.
E Dushyant Dave, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Aniruddha Deshmukh, Nikhil
Goel, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dhruv Gautam, Ms. Neha Agarwal, Jasmeet Singh, Kumar
Parimal, Sarad Kr. Singhania, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, 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 order
dated 09.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
G Writ Petition (C) No.5734 of 2016 whereby the High Court disposed of
the said writ petition 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) and set aside the order dated
30.06.2016(notified on 06.07.2016).
H
M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF 1061
INDIA & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
3. Heard learned counsel on IA No.16352 of 2018. A
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. B
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).
C
7. The challenge in the said writ petition was to an order dated
30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016) 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 D
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
E
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
F
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 dispute between the parties and the
above order has been passed solely on the basis of the
statement made on behalf of respondents.” G
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
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 order dated 09.11.2017.
The review petition is pending.
12. During the course of submissions, it has also been pointed out
C 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 High 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
D 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
E of the appeal and subsequent 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)
F 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
G 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 statement made by the
learned counsel for the Union of India, which was based on incorrect
H
M/S TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. UNION OF 1063
INDIA & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
briefing, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of all the A
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 B
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. C
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 D
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.
E
Ankit Gyan I.A. and Appeal allowed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Writ petition"Sign in to search