ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: J. Chelameswar
Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment Date: 2016-02-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed; the portion of the High Court order depriving the appellants of recourse to the Court in the future is set aside, and liberty is granted to the appellants to approach appropriate Courts to ventilate their grievance concerning the NTPC matter.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anubhav Kumar Choudhary
Others

Respondents

Union of India
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manu Shanker Mishra
• Nishant Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal concerns a challenge to a High Court order that, while permitting the petitioners to file a representation before NTPC regarding their grievance, simultaneously barred them from approaching the High Court again for the same matter. The Patna High Court had allowed the writ petition and granted liberty to file the representation but held that the petitioners would have no liberty to move the Court again for the same cause of action. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and proceeded to decide the appeal. It held that although the High Court rightly enabled the appellants to make representations to NTPC, it erred by depriving them of the right to pursue legal remedies in court if the representation is adverse or if no orders are passed. The Court emphasized that the right to seek redress in the courts against decisions of the State or its agencies is a valuable civil right and cannot be extinguished without justification. Consequently, the High Court’s restrictive portion was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed, with liberty granted to the appellants to pursue all legal remedies, including recourse to appropriate courts, to ventilate their grievance should occasion arise in relation to the NTPC dispute. The decision reinforces the principle that citizens must retain access to judicial remedies and cannot be arbitrarily denied them at the doorstep of a representation proceeding.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that while the High Court rightly permitted a representation to NTPC, it erred in depriving them of liberty to challenge the decision later in the courts. They contended that the right to pursue legal remedies against State decisions or State agencies is a valuable civil right and cannot be curtailed without a justifiable reason; liberty to pursue all available legal remedies should be maintained if the representation yields an adverse outcome or no decision is rendered.

Contentions of Respondents

Not detailed in the document.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016) 2 S.C.R. 34 A ## ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. ## UNION OF INDIA & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No. 2405 of2016) 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 35 ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA 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 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. D 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and· have 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. E 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 (2016] 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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.