Back
2001 Supreme(Cal) 29
High Court Of Calcutta
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
INDOFER SOCIETY - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE - Respondent
C. A. N. 8140 Of 2000
Decided On : 01/19/2001
Jayanta Mitra, MILAN BANERJI, N.C.ROY CHAUDHARY, N.N.Gupta, P.K.MALICK, S.K.KAPOOR, Singhvi
Amendment of writ petition - Addition of parties - Amendment application dismissed - Addition of party application dismissed - Jurisdiction of court not decided.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION - ADDITION OF PARTIES - AMENDMENT APPLICATION DISMISSED - ADDITION OF PARTY APPLICATION DISMISSED - JURISDICTION OF COURT NOT DECIDED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction upon the Designated Authority to dispose of the second anti-dumping petition in accordance with law on merit. Petitioners apprehended that the floor price of H. R. Coils would be withdrawn, exposing them to the risk of anti-dumping of the said items once again. By way of amendment, petitioners sought to challenge the notification dated 1. 11. 1999 by which the floor price of H. R. Coil was reduced and then withdrawn altogether. Union of India filed an application for addition of workers' union as a party respondent.
Finding of the Court:
1. Amendment application was malafide and taken out at a stage when the hearing of the writ petition was being taken up. 2. Proposed amendment did not disclose a subsisting right in order to maintain a writ petition. 3. Maintenance of floor price by the respondent authority cannot be any legal right nor any promise not to speak of any fundamental right. 4. Case sought to be brought by amendment had become infractuous and futile as the effect of impugned notification had come to an end because of efflux of time. 5. Workers' union was not a necessary party to the writ petition as their rights were not affected by the decision of the Designated Authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment application should be allowed? 2. Whether the workers' union should be added as a party respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Amendment application was malafide and taken out at a stage when the hearing of the writ petition was being taken up. 2. Proposed amendment did not disclose a subsisting right in order to maintain a writ petition. 3. Maintenance of floor price by the respondent authority cannot be any legal right nor any promise not to speak of any fundamental right. 4. Case sought to be brought by amendment had become infractuous and futile as the effect of impugned notification had come to an end because of efflux of time. 5. Workers' union was not a necessary party to the writ petition as their rights were not affected by the decision of the Designated Authority.
Final Decision: 1. Amendment application dismissed with costs. 2. Application for addition of workers' union as a party respondent dismissed.
( 1 ) AFTER completion of filing of affidavits for final hearing of the writ petition and in fact after the writ petition itself was being heard for two days this application has been taken out for the following reliefs:- (A)amendment of the main writ petition being W. P. No. 12492 (W) of 1999 as shown in a copy of the said writ petition delineated in a writ being annexure 'x'; (B)alternatively and in any event, the petitioners be allowed to urge the grounds as enumerated in the instant application and to mould the prayers as mentioned in the instant application; (C)in any event the instant application be permitted to be treated as part of the main writ petition being W. P. No. 12492 (W) of 1999.
( 2 ) IN this application neither of the parties has filed any affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioners and added parties and/or intervenors apart from advancing oral submission have filed written notes of arguments but other parties were contended with oral submission.
( 3 ) DR. Singhvi, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted various aspects both on the question of jurisdiction and my authority as to whether I can entertain the aforesaid application at this stage without deciding the question of jurisdiction in the writ petition itself.
( 4 ) HE contends that question of territorial jurisdiction for entertaining and trying the present amendment petition is absolutely of no relevance. In this situation the correct procedure would be to first grant amendment and, thereafter, to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction. In support of his submission he has relied on the following decisions. (i) AIR 1958 All 96, (ii) AIR 1983 Cal 384, (iii) AIR 1953 Hyderabad 212, (iv) AIR 1959 Rajasthan 146, (v) AIR 1949 Madras 208, (vi) AIR 1982 Orissa 25, (vii) AIR 1982 Kerala 28, (viii) AIR 1969 N. 75, (ix) AIR 1973 Guj 283 and (x) AIR 1985 Bom 462.
( 5 ) IN the present case, he contends, that there is no new or inconsistent cause of action. In the original writ petition there are two parts of causes of action and the reliefs too claimed in relation thereto, one of the grievances of the writ petitioners is against order of the Designated Authority in not having considered the second application for imposition of anti dumping duty and had, therefore, prayed that the Designated Authority be commanded by an appropriate writ to perform his statutory duty of dealing with anti dumping petition on merit. Another substantial plea raised by the petitioner in the present writ relates to threatened injury owing to possible withdrawal of the floor price fixed vide notification dated 11th December, 1998 and this plea of the petitioner is independent of, but not inconsistent with the plea regarding the application for discharging statutory duty by the Designated Authority. It is one of the cases of the petitioner in the present writ petition that the respondent No. 1 should not withdraw floor price fixed in respect of H. R. Coils vide aforesaid notification.
( 6 ) HE contends now this apprehension and threat have become true as the floor price which was originally there, has been totally withdrawn and this subsequent event has taken place during pendency of the writ petition.
( 7 ) HE contends that it is now settled law that the subsequent event could always by looked into by the Courts when they occur during pendency of the petition and/or lis. When by subsequent event the law is changed or such event materially alter the situation prevailed originally, the same can always be challenged by amending the writ petition else there would be multiplicity of the litigation. For this proposition he has relied on the following decisions. (i) AIR 1963 SC 1165; (ii) AIR 1978 SC 1178, (iii) AIR 1975 SC 1409, (iv) AIR 1974 All 73, (v) AIR 1960 Cal 278, (vi) AIR 1970 Rajasthan 77, and (vii) 1963 Madras 217 (F. B. ).
( 8 ) IN his alternative argument he contends that if it appears to the Court that the proposed amendment is based upon a
