Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 1393
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA, M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
SARIN MEMO.LEG.AID. FOU. - Appellant
VERSUS
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS. - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4847 OF 2014
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 994 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4848 OF 2014
Decided On : 22-04- 2014
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Natasha Vinayak, Adv. Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharon, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohan Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. M.P. Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Adv. for Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Nair, Adv. Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv. Mr. Siddhanth Kochhar, Adv. for M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. & Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Nair, Adv. Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv. Mr. Siddhanth Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. for M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Ajay Bansal, A.A.G. Mr. Kuldip Singh ,Adv. Mr. Pardaman Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Adv. Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Narender Hooda, A.A.G. Ms. Bano D., Adv. Mr. K.M. Gupta, Adv.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in filing special leave petitions and can grant leave for necessary amendments to the writ petition. The court also has the authority to transfer matters to a different court for adjudication and issue directions to maintain status quo.
Headnote:
Delay - Special Leave Petition - The court condoned the delay in filing the special leave petition and granted leave in the special leave petitions. The judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was restored to its original number and transferred to the Delhi High Court for adjudication. The respondent was granted leave to amend the writ petition and make necessary pleadings relating to the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed not to decide on the issue of the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The matters transferred to the Delhi High Court were to be heard by a Division Bench and the respondent was directed to maintain status quo until the decision of the Delhi High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned and leave was granted. The judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was restored to its original number and transferred to the Delhi High Court for adjudication. The respondent was granted leave to amend the writ petition and make necessary pleadings relating to the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed not to decide on the issue of the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The matters transferred to the Delhi High Court were to be heard by a Division Bench and the respondent was directed to maintain status quo until the decision of the Delhi High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned and leave was granted. The judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was restored to its original number and transferred to the Delhi High Court for adjudication. The respondent was granted leave to amend the writ petition and make necessary pleadings relating to the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed not to decide on the issue of the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The matters transferred to the Delhi High Court were to be heard by a Division Bench and the respondent was directed to maintain status quo until the decision of the Delhi High Court.
Issues: Delay in filing special leave petition, amendment of writ petition, jurisdiction of High Court, maintenance of status quo
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned, and the court directed the transfer of the writ petition to the Delhi High Court for adjudication. The respondent was granted leave to amend the writ petition and make necessary pleadings relating to the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed not to decide on the issue of the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The matters transferred to the Delhi High Court were to be heard by a Division Bench, and the respondent was directed to maintain status quo until the decision of the Delhi High Court.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned, and leave was granted. The judgment and order of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to its original number and transferred to the Delhi High Court for adjudication. The respondent was granted leave to amend the writ petition and make necessary pleadings relating to the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed not to decide on the issue of the project land falling within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. The matters transferred to the Delhi High Court were to be heard by a Division Bench, and the respondent was directed to maintain status quo until the decision of the Delhi High Court.
ORDER :
1. Delay is condoned in filing special leave petition in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32660 of 2013.
2. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
3. After arguing for some time, learned senior counsel for the parties, on instructions, have agreed for the following order:-
(i) (a) The judgment and order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 20425 of 2010, Aalok Jagga Vs. Union of India & others, is set aside and Writ Petition is restored to its original number and it is transferred to the Delhi High Court for its adjudication.
(b) The petitioner in the above Writ Petition, on restoration, is granted leave to amend the
Writ Petition and make necessary pleadings relating to the question whether or not the project land of respondent No. 6 falls within the catchment area of Sukhna lake. This will obviously include the aspect concerning Section 48(5) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 read with the 13th Schedule appended thereto and the notification dated 15th March, 1963 No. 1789-Ft-IV/63/898. The necessary amendment in the Writ Petition shall be made within three weeks.
(c) Respondent No. 6 and other contesting respondents may file amended counter affidavit/s within two weeks thereafter so as to complete the pleadings in the transferred Writ Petition in all respects before the Delhi High Court closes for summer vacation.
(ii) (a) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 994 of 2013, Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation Vs. State of Punjab & Others, filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is converted into Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is being transferred to the Delhi High Court for consideration and disposal along with the above transferred Writ Petition.
(b) The contesting respondents waive service in the Writ Petition. They may file their written response within three weeks from today and rejoinder may be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter so as to complete the pleadings in all respects before the Delhi High Court closes for summer vacation.
(iii) We clarify that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana shall not decide in Civil Writ Petition No. 18253 of 2009 (O&M), Court on its own motion Vs. Chandigarh Administration and others, the following issue :-
Whether or not the project land of respondent No. 6 falls within the catchment area of Sukhna lake ?
4. We order accordingly.
5. The above two matters, namely, Civil Writ Petition No. 20425 of 2010 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 994 of 2013 which have been transferred to the Delhi High Court shall be heard by a Division Bench. We request the Division Bench to hear and decide the above transferred matters as early as may be possible and preferably by August 31, 2014. No fresh Writ Petition in respect of the above controversy shall be entertained by any Court.
6. We record and accept the statement of Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.6, that until the decision of the Delhi High Court in the above transferred matters and for a period of one month thereafter the respondent No. 6 shall maintain status quo as obtaining today in respect of the subject project land.
7. In view of the above statement, the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 does not survive and is rendered ineffective.
8. The Registry of this Court as well as the Registry of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana are directed to transmit the respective records of the above cases to the Delhi High Court forthwith.
9. Civil Appeals and Writ Petition are disposed of as above. No costs.
