ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 29-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016) 2 S.C.R. 34 
ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2405 of2016) 
FEBRUARY 29, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure: High Court while disposing of 
the appellants writ petition granted liberty to file representation 
to the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) but at the 
same time passed a11 order that the appellants will have no 
liberty to move the High Court again for the same cause of action 
raised therein - Propriety of High Court :S order - Held: A right to 
prosecute the legal remedy in the court of law to challenge any 
decision of the State or/and its agency is a valuable legal right of 
the citizen and the High Court could not take away such right from 
the appellant without assigning any reason - Appellant has 
every right to take recourse to all legal remedies as are available 
to him in law in the event a11y adverse order is passed on his 
representation or when no orders are passed on 
his 
representation once made. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court having rightly granted 
indulgence to the appellant to file the representation to the 
NTPC for ventilating his grievance, should have also granted 
liberty to the appellant to tak•i recourse to all legal remedies to 
challenge the decision once taken on his representation, if 
occasion so arises. [Para 8] [36-D] 
2. A right to prosecute the legal remedy in the court of 
law to challenge any decision of the State or/and its agency is a 
valuable legal right of the citizen and the High Court could not 
take away such right from the appellant without assigning any 
reason. There is apparently no justifiable reason to deny the 
appellant from taking recourse to the legal remedies to prosecute 
his grievance in a Court oflaw in relation to the dispute, which 
is the subject matter of the representation in case if occasion 
34 
ANUBHAV KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA 
35 
arises in future. That part of the impugned order, which deprives 
A 
the appellant to move to the Court again in the event his 
representation is decided against him by the NTPC is set aside. 
(Paras 9, 10] (36-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2405 
OF2016 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2015 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 5402 of 2015 
Manu Shanker Mishra, Nishant Kumar, Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Delay in filing special 
leave petition is condoned. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed againsfthe final judgment and order dated 
08.04.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CW JC No. 5402 
of2015 whereby the High Court while disposing of the appellant's writ 
D 
petition granted liberty to file representation to the National Thermal 
Power Corporation (NTPC) but at the same time passed an-order that 
the appellants will have no liberty to move the High Court again forthe 
same cause of action raised therein. 
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and· have 
E 
perused the record of the case. 
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined 
to dispose of this appeal after granting leave at the admission stage itself 
as we are of the view that the same can be disposed of without notice to 
the other side. 
F 
5. In the light of the order that we have pa_ssed, it is neither 
necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail and as mentioned 
above nor necessary to issue notice of this appeal to the other side. 
6. The impugned order passed by the High Court reads as under: 
"After some arguments, learned counsel for the 
petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application 
in order to enable the petitioners to file representation 
before the competent authority of the National Thermal 
Power Corporation (NTPC). While this Court would accord 
G 
H 
36 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
such leave to the petitioner but it is made clear that the 
petitioners will have now no liberty to move this Court again 
for the same cause of action raised herein." 
7. The only grievance oflearned counsel for the appellant is that 
the High Court having rightly granted liberty to the appellant to file the 
representation for ventilating his grievance before the NTPC erred in 
taking away his right to prosecute his grievance, if occasion arises in 
future depending upon th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.