Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1328
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN AND NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission – Appellant
Versus
Anil Wadpalliwar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2283 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 8414 - 8416 of 2019)
Decided on : 11-02-2025
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Due Process of Law - Public Interest Litigation - Orders of High Court relating to procedural amendments are to be reconsidered. The High Court failed to give notice before allowing amendments, hindering the appellant's opportunity to respond, thus violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 5, 8)
(B) Right to Fair Hearing - The right of parties to be heard and to present arguments is fundamental. The right to a fair hearing entails notice and opportunity to counter amendments in ongoing litigation, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from Public Interest Litigation contested by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, challenging the legality of a resolution passed in 2018 that eliminated public records. The case has been pending in the High Court since 2018 due to delays in adjudication.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found merit in setting aside the High Court's impugned orders, emphasizing procedural fairness and the need to allow proper consideration of amendments. The appeals were thus disposed of without costs and remanded for expeditious adjudication.
Issues: The primary issue was whether procedural fairness was maintained in the amendment process concerning the litigation, particularly in the context of notice and opportunities given to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allowing amendments without notice to the opposing party violates natural justice, necessitating a reevaluation of the amendment application in the High Court to ensure fair proceedings. No prejudice should arise from the amendment process.
Result: Appeals disposed of; orders set aside and matters remanded to High Court for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of public interest litigation (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against amendments to the petition (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's response and procedural directives (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. conclusion and order to remand (Para 7 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. A small procedural issue has held up the Public Interest Litigation petition from adjudication for the last nearly seven years. On 03.10.2018, the first respondent filed PIL No. 129 of 2018 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench praying for the following reliefs:
"a) "Treat and entertain the instant petition as a Public Interest Litigation" as the same involves greater public interest;
b) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, hold and declare that the resolution dt. 4th of September 2018 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent Commission as per se illegal, arbitrary, draconian and highly unconstitutional which defeats the spirit of transparency in the proceedings held before the State Commission and therefore does not stand to the scrutiny of law;
c) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quash and set aside the resolution dt. 4th of September 2018 passed by the respondent commission as the same is against the public interest and defeats the spirit of transparency in the court and quasi-judicial proceedings held before the respondent commission;
d) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, restrain the respondent commission from eliminating any of the previous records as per specified in the impugned resolution dt. 4th of September 2018;
e) By way of interim relief kindly be pleased to stay the effect, operation, and/or implementation of resolution dt. 4th of September 2018 passed by the respondent Commission during the pendency of the instant petition;
f) By way of interim relief kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent-Commission from eliminating any of the previous records as specified in the impugned resolution dt. 4th of September 2018;"
3. It is the case of the appellant that after pleadings were completed, arguments commenced from 04.02.2019 and the matter was kept for 13.02.2019, as part-heard. Further, on conclusion of arguments by the counsel for the respondent(s) herein, leave was sought to amend the petition. On 14.02.2019, this leave was orally sought and the prayer was to amend the prayer clause seeking penal action to be taken against the concerned individuals who are found involved in destruction of public records. Leave was orally prayed for and granted by the order of 14.02.2019. The operative part of the order reads as under:
"In the meantime, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to suitably amend the petition, particularly its prayer clause praying for penal action to be taken against the concerned who are found involved in destruction of public records. Leave, as prayed for, is allowed."
4. The matter was stood over for 20.02.2019. On 20.02.2019, an application for effecting the amendment incorporating subsequent events was tendered. On the ground that leave has already been granted, the application was allowed. The Court further observed as under:
"In fact, we find that, having considering grant of leave as aforesaid, there was no reason for taking out any such application. In that view of the matter, we impose costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur. Petitioner to serve amended copy of petition to the respondents, who shall file additional affidavit-in-reply. Amendment be carried out forthwith."
5. The appellant herein - Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission moved for recall of the orders of 14.02.2019 and 20.02.2019. The ground urged was that before the amendments were allowed, no notice of the amendment application was issued and the appellant had no opportunity to counter and question the need for amendment and the legitimacy for the amendment at the late stage of the proceedings. The Court however dismissed the recall a
