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

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 2405 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 29, 2016

                                                                  Reportable
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2405 OF 2016
                    (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 6342/2016)
                          (@ SLP(c)…..CC 3551/2016)



      Anubhav Kumar Choudhary & Ors.                           Appellant(s)


                                   VERSUS


      Union of India & Ors.                                   Respondent(s)



                               J U D G M E N T


Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1)    Delay in filing special leave petition  is condoned. Leave granted.
2)    This appeal is filed  against  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated
08.04.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna  in  CWJC  No.  5402  of
2015 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  for  the  same
cause of action raised therein.
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.
5)    In the light  of  the  order  that  we  have  passed,  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:
      “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 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 of learned counsel for the appellant  is  that  the
High Court having rightly granted liberty  to  the  appellant  to  file  the
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
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 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
justifiable reason to deny the appellant from taking recourse to  the  legal
remedies to prosecute his grievance in a Court of law  in  relation  to  the
dispute, which is the subject  matter  of  the  representation  in  case  if
occasion arises in future.
10)   In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal in 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  law,  by  approaching
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.,



                                    .……...................................J.
                                                         [J. CHELAMESWAR]


                                     ………..................................J.
                                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
      New Delhi,
      February 29, 2016.

-----------------------
4