Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 466

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Lunawat Construction Company, A Partnership Firm represented By its Partner Maniklal Peerchand Lunawat – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (c) No.96 of 2011 With Transferred Case (c) No. 30 of 2010 and Writ Petition (c) No.36 of 2012
Decided On : 16-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vinay Navare, Sr.Adv. Ms.Gwen Karthika, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. Mrs.V.D. Khanna, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mrs.Jayashree Wad, Adv. Mr.Sidharth Mahajan, Adv. Ms.Sukriti Jaggi, Adv. M/S.J.S.Wad & Co. Mr.Annam D.N. Rao, AOR Mr.A.Venkatesh, Adv. Mr.Rahul Mishra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
No prejudice is likely to cause to parties, if these writ petitions and transferred case are sent to High Court for their hearing on merits of controversy instead of deciding issue by this Court in the first instance.

Headnote:Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 – Constitution of India – Article 32 – Constitutional validity of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 – It is just and proper to send these writ petitions and transferred case to High Court of Bombay for their disposal on merits in accordance with law – No prejudice is likely to cause to parties, if these writ petitions and transferred case are sent to High Court for their hearing on merits of controversy instead of deciding issue by this Court in the first instance – Once High Court renders its decision, this Court will have benefit of findings of High Court, if occasion arises – Both writ petitions and transferred case sent to High Court for their disposal on merits in accordance with law. (Paras 3 to 6)
       Facts of Case:
       By filing Writ Petition (c) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, petitioner therein has challenged constitutional validity of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. In connected writ petition and Transferred Case, petitioners have claimed similar reliefs.
       Findings of Court:
       No prejudice is likely to cause to parties, if these writ petitions and transferred case are sent to High Court for their hearing on merits of controversy instead of deciding the issue by this Court in first instance.
       Result : Matter remanded to High Court.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

1. By filing Writ Petition (c) No.96/2011 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner therein has challenged the constitutional validity of The Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 (Annexure P-15).

2. In connected writ petition and the Transferred Case, the petitioners have claimed the similar reliefs, which are claimed in the lead Writ Petition No. 96/2011.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we deem it just and proper to send these writ petitions and the transferred case to the High Court of Bombay for their disposal on merits in accordance with law.

4. In our view, no prejudice is likely to cause to the parties, if these writ petitions and the transferred case are sent to the High Court for their hearing on merits of the controversy instead of deciding the issue by this Court in the first instance.

5. On the other hand, we are of the view that once the High Court renders its decision, this Court will have the benefit of the findings of the High Court, if occasion arises.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the writ petitions and the transferred case (W.P.(c) No.96/2011, W.P.(c) No.36/2012 and T.C.(c) No.30/2010 are sent to the High Court for their disposal on merits in accordance with law. We request the High Court to decide the writ petitions expeditiously.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 466

IMPORTANT POINTNo prejudice is likely to cause to parties, if these writ petitions and transferred case are sent to High Court for their hearing on merits of controversy instead of deciding issue by this Court in the first instance.

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IMPORTANT POINT
No prejudice is likely to cause to parties, if these writ petitions and transferred case are sent to High Court for their hearing on merits of controversy instead of deciding issue by this Court in the first instance.