M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RE: INDER MOHAN BENSIWAL RE: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 27-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
I 
.... _ 
M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
RE: INDER MOHAN BENSIWAL 
RE: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 
JULY 27, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. JAGANNNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 32 and 226-Natural justice-Denial of-Court's discretion--
Nature and scope of-H was allotted site for petrol pump-Later Supreme 
Court, in a PIL case relating to maintenance of environment, ordered Petrol 
Pump B to Shift from Ridge area-Government allotting B at same site which 
A 
B 
c 
was allotted to H without notice to H-Subsequently, Supreme Court recalled 
its earlier order and allowed B to continue in the old location-Original D 
allotment of H, therefore, restored-No notice given to B-Held: If on the 
admitted or. indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible 
and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is 
violation of principles of natural justice-Therefore, on the admitted and 
indisputable facts, namely, the recall of the earlier order of Supreme Court, E 
it is mandatory for the Supreme Court to restore the status quo ante prevailing 
on the date of its first order-Restitution is a must in these circumstances-
Hence, grant of writ in favour of B would be in vain-Articles 32 and 226-
Court's discretion-Nature and scope of-Order-Breaching natural justice-
Striking down of-Held: Not always necessary-Court can refuse to strike 
down an order if such striking down would result in restoration of another F 
order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite 
party-Administrative Law. 
Natural justice-Statutory provisions-Notice-Waiver of-Held: Notice 
may be _waived if a statutory provision is intended for individual benefit but 
not if it is intended to protect interest. Natural justice-"Useless formality" G 
theory-No opinion expressed on its correctness or otherwise . 
The respondent allotted a site for a petrol pump at San Martin Marg 
to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). However, the same site 
was allotted to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), which was ordered H 
1173 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A by this Court, in a public interest litigation relating to maintenance of 
environment, to shift to a new location. But no notice was given to HPCL. 
This Court later on recalled its earlier order regarding change of 
location and allowed BPCL to continue in the old location. Thereafter, the 
original allotment was restored to HPCL without giving a notice to BPCL. 
B BPCL filed the present application in this Court for quashing of the order 
of re-allotment to HPCL as it had been passed in breach of principles of 
natural justice. 
Dismissing the application, this Court 
C 
HELD : 1. On the admitted and indisputable facts, namely, the recall 
of this Court's earlier order, it becomes mandatory for this Court to restore 
the status quo ante prevailing on the date of its first order. Restitution is 
'ii must. Further Bharat Petroleum having got back its plot it cannot lay 
further claim to the one at San Martin Marg, which was given to it only in 
lieu of its original plot. Similarly, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has 
D to get back its plot in san Martin Marg inasmuch as, otherwise, it will have 
none and Bharat Petroleum will have two. Bharat Petroleum cannot retain 
the advantage, which it got from an order of this Court, which has since been 
withdrawn. Thus what is permissible and what is possible is a single view 
and the case on hand comes squarely within the exception laid down in S.L 
E Kapoor 's case. It is, therefore, clear that if on the admitted or indisputable 
factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court 
need not issue a writ merely because there is a violation of principles of 
natural justice. [1185-A-B) 
SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan, [1980)4 SCC 379, relied on. 
F 
Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964), AC 40, referred to . 
. 2. It is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order 
merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach 
of natural justice. The Court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to 
exercise its discretion of striking down the order if another orde.r passed 
G earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party in violation 
of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law. 
[1182-B) 
Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P., [1966)2SCR172 and 
Mohamm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.