Important points
1. If on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The Court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 226-Writ jurisdiction-Mere violation of principles of natural justice, whether would warrant issue of writ?-Court can under Article 32 or 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down an order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of petitioner and against opposite party in violation of principles of natural justice-Writ need not be issued merely on ground of violation of natural justice, if on admitted or indisputable factual situation only one conclusion is possible and permissible.
       Held : It is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice. The Court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law. (Para 16)
       If on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 20)
       In relation to cases other than those relating to admitted or indisputable facts, there is considerable divergence of opinion whether the applicant can be compelled to prove that the outcome will be in his favour or he has to prove a case of substance or if he can prove a “real likelihood” of success or if he is entitled to relief even if there is some remote chance of success. We may, however, point out that even in cases where the facts are not all admitted or beyond dispute, there is considerable unanimity that the courts can, in exercise of their “discretion”, refuse certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though natural justice is not followed. We may also state that there is yet another line of cases as in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996(3) SCC 364), Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (1996(5) SCC 460), that even in relation to statutory provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between cases where the provision is intended for individual benefit and where the provision is intended to protect public interest. In the former case, it can be waived while in the case of the latter, it can not be waived. We do not propose to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the “useless formality” theory and leave the matter for decision in an appropriate case inasmuch as, in the case before us, “admitted and indisputable” facts show that grant of a writ will be in vain. (Paras 21 & 22)

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-The applicant in I.A. No. 481 is Sri Inder Mohan Bensiwal who is an allottee of a retail outlet dealership for Petrol from the Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. (8th respondent)(hereinafter called ‘HPCL’) under a letter dated 16-11-1993. I.A. 481 is filed by him for restoration of the San Marten Marg plot as a dealer of HPCL. The contesting party in the I.A. 481 is Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. and it has filed an independent IA also for quashing the order dated 10.3.1999 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

Initially the HPCL wrote to the Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development for allotment of suitable site to the HPCL on 17.11.1993 and 24.1.1994 and an order was passed by the Deputy Land & Development Officer on 7.9.1994 allotting a site described as Site B. But finally by order dated 10.7.1996 a site at San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi was allotted by the Land & Development Officer to HPCL for the purpose of the petrol station of the applicant.

3. But, the order of this Court in a public interest case changed the turn of events. On 28.4.1997, this Court passed an order in the public interest litigation relating to maintenance of environment in the Ridge area, for shifting the Bagga Link Road Filling Station (not party before us) who is a dealer with Bharat Petroleum Corporation from the Ridge area. consequent thereto the Urban Development Department passed an order on 30.7.97, allotting the plot at San Martin Marg to Bharat Petroleum Corporation. That plot was already allotted to HPCL as stated above. It is an admitted fact that the department did not give any notice to HPCL not to the applicant before taking away the San Martin plot and allotting it to Bharat Petroleum. To the order of this Court dated 28.4.1997 in the PIL case, HPCL and the applicant were not parties.

4. However, in a review petition filed by Bagga Link Road Filling Station in IA 185 in IA 18, this Court on 7.4.1998 recalled the order dated 28.4.1997 and allowed the said dealer to continue where he was previously conducting his business at the Ridge area. It was also ordered that the “alternative space allotted to the filling station (i.e. San Martin Marg) be withdrawn,” and it was directed that “The Land & Development Officer may retain possession of the land which was proposed to be allotted to it (i.e. Bagga Link Filling Station).” It is the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation that pursuant to the order of the Government of India dated 30.7.1997, it was put in possession on 1.9.1997.

5. Soon after the passing of the order of the Supreme Court dated 7.4.1998, recalling its earlier order dated 28.4.97, the HPCL wrote to the Land & Development Officer on 20.4.1998 for restoration of status quo ante, namely for restoration of the San Martin plot to the HPCL so that it could be given back to its dealer, the applicant, as originally contemplated. The applicant also made representation on 18.5.1998 and 26.11.1998. In the meantime, without noticing the latter order of the Supreme Court, the Joint Director (New Leases) allotted a site in Dwarka to HPCL on 26.11.98 for allotment to the HPCL in substitution of the plot at San Martin Marg, for being given to the applicant. It was not noticed that Bharat Petroleum Corporation’s plot at the Bagga Link-Road Filling Station was to be restored to it and consequently HPCL could get back its plot at San Martin Marg. But after the order of this Court dated 7.4.98 recalling its earlier order dated 28.4.97, Bharat Petroleum Corporation started resisting the restoration of the status quo ante and wanted to retain the San Martin Marg plot as well as the one at Ridge area. That has resulted in the present dispute.

6. The Government realised that once the order of the Supreme Court dated 28.4.1997 was recalled on 7.4.1998, Bharat Petroleum could not lay any claim to San Martin Marg plot because its dealer, Link Filling St

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 766

Cases Referred (3)