LexNATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. versus CITY & INDUST. DEV. CORPN., MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
A
v.
CITY & INDUST. DEV. CORPN., MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
JULY 20, 2007
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]
. B
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226 read with Article 13 I-Dispute betwee~ a Central
Government entity and a State Government entity-Writ petition- · C
Maintainablity of-Held: Considering the nature of contrqversy and in view
of the decisions of the Supreme Court, a Committee of the Officers mentioned
in- the judgment be formed to sort out the dispute between the Central
Government and the State Government expeditiously-Directions issued.
The appellant-Corporation, a Government of India entity filed a writ
petition against the respondent City and Industrial Development Corporation,
a State Government entity, inter alia, for a direction to execute the agreement
D
in respect of possession of the plots covered thereunder. The High Court
ultimately hetd that the issues related to contractual matters and the writ
petition was not the appropriate remedy. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed E
the instant appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the instant case, CIDCO is a State entity and the appellant is
a central entity. The desirability of having a committee to sort out differences F
between public sector undertakings, State Governments and different
Government departments has been highlighted by this Court in several cases.
The matter is pending since 1990. Considering the nature of the controversy,
which is a recurring feature, it is directed that a committee comprising the
officers mentioned in the judgment be formed to sort out the differences
between the Central Government and the State Government entities Q
expeditiously. (Paras 7, 10 and 11) 1431-H; 432-A; 436-8-D]
Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector and Ors., 12003)
2 SCR 180=(2003) 3 SCC 472; Punjab and Sind Bank v. Allahabad Bank
429
II
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 8 S.C.R.
A and Ors., (2006) 3 SCR 489=2006 4 SCC 780; U.P. SEB and Anr. v. Sant
Kabir Sahakari K'(ltai Mills Ltd. (2005) 3 Supp. SCR 293=[2005) 7 SCC 576;
and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Chairman, Central Board, Direct
Taxes and Anr., (2004) 2 Supp. SCR 593=(2004) 6 SCC 431, relied on.
Mis Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. v; City Industrial Development
B Corpn & Anr., JT (2007) 4 SC 70; National Highways Authority of India v.
Ganga Enterprises and Anr., (2003) 3 Supp. SCR 114=(2003) 7 SCC 410 and
Rajureshwar Associates v~ State of Maharashtra, (20041 2 Supp. SCR
915=(200416SCC362; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Ors., (19981 2 Supp. SCR 359=(19981 8 SCC 1 and Oil and
C Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, (19921 Supp
2 sec 432, cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:, Civil Appeal No; 3143 of2007.
From the Judgment & Order datea 18. 7 .2004 of the High Court of
D Judicature at Boinbay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4036 of 200 I.
E
..
.
Gourab Banerjee, Sunil Kumar Jain, S. Borth~kur and Jaya Tomar for the
Appellant.
Altaf Ahmad, Varun 'rhiikur and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted .
. 2. Challenge in. this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.4036 of2001
F
~ith Civil Application No.1583 of2004: It was held that with reference to
several judgments of this Court the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised
in contractual matters. It was also held that there was no reason whatsoever
for which. a Government of India und~rtaking shall bypass the alternative
remedy of a .civil suit.
G
H
· 3·. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
A writ petition was filed l;>y the appellant alleging inaction on the part
of the City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited
(hereinafter referred to as 'CIDCO') in not executing the agreement of lease
/
...
·...,{_
OIL& NATURALGASCORPN. LTD. v. CITY & INDUST. DEV. CORPN., MAHARASHTRA(PASAYAT,J.) 43)
with the appellant-company. Prayer in the writ petition was for a direction by A '
issuance of an appropriate writ requiring the CIDCO to execute the agreement
in respect of the possession of plots covered by the agreements. Prayer
essentially w~s (i) to hand over the possession of plot of land admeasuring
24 hectares ·demarcated in favour of the appellant situated at BhanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.