Supreme Court orders fresh hearing on exploration license: Trimex Sands vs. Union of India (25 April 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 395

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a court set aside its own order if it was based on a wrong statement made by a lawyer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over an exploration license. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court of Delhi was correct in setting aside an order of the Union of India based on a statement made by the Union’s counsel, which was later found to be incorrect. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has directed the High Court to rehear the matter. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 before the High Court of Delhi, challenging an order dated 30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016) issued by the Union of India. The High Court, based on a statement made by the counsel for the Union of India, set aside the said order on 09.11.2017, without going into the merits of the case. The appellants, M/s Trimex Sands Pvt. Limited, who were not parties to the original writ petition, filed a special leave petition to challenge the High Court’s order. The Union of India also filed a review petition in the High Court seeking recall of the order dated 09.11.2017, stating that its counsel had made an incorrect statement based on wrong briefing.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially disposed of the writ petition based on a statement made by the counsel for the Union of India, without examining the merits of the case. Subsequently, the Union of India filed a review petition seeking recall of the order, stating that its counsel’s statement was based on incorrect briefing. The High Court did not decide the writ petition on merits.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific legal provisions or sections of any statute. However, the case revolves around the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power of the High Court to review its own orders.

Arguments

The primary argument made by the Union of India was that its counsel made an incorrect statement before the High Court, which led to the disposal of the writ petition without considering the merits of the case. This incorrect statement was attributed to wrong briefing by the concerned official.

The original writ petitioner (respondent No. 3) opposed the application made by the Union of India and argued that the issues arising in the writ petition should be decided on merits.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues. However, the implicit issue before the Court was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Union of India based on an incorrect statement made by its counsel, without examining the merits of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions as authorities. The decision was based on the principle that a court should decide a case on its merits and not on the basis of an incorrect statement made by a counsel.

Judgment

The Court did not discuss any specific authorities, as the decision was based on the principle that cases should be decided on merits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court had disposed of the writ petition based on an incorrect statement made by the Union of India’s counsel, without considering the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that justice requires cases to be decided on their merits, and that an error by counsel should not prejudice the rights of the parties.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that cases should be decided on their merits, and any procedural error should not prejudice the rights of the parties.

The Supreme Court stated:

“In our opinion, keeping in view the grounds now raised by the Union of India and further the fact that the High Court did not decide the writ petition on merits but disposed it of on the statement made by the learned counsel for the Union of India, which was based on incorrect briefing, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of all the parties concerned that the writ petition is heard afresh and is disposed of on its merits in accordance with law by the High Court.”

The Court also clarified:

“We, however, make it clear that we have not examined the case of the parties on merits having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court on the grounds mentioned above and, therefore, the High Court will decide the writ petition without being influenced by any observations made this Court on merit in this order.”

The Court further stated:

“All the parties are granted liberty to amend their respective pleadings before the High Court in the aforementioned writ petition to enable the High Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• Cases should be decided on their merits and not based on incorrect statements made by counsel.
• If a court disposes of a case based on an incorrect statement, it is appropriate to set aside the order and rehear the case on merits.
• Parties are given the liberty to amend their pleadings to enable a fresh hearing on merits.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that cases are decided on their merits and not on procedural errors or incorrect statements. It also highlights the responsibility of counsels to ensure they are properly briefed on the facts of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
• The writ petition (No.5734 of 2016) is restored to its original number before the High Court.
• The High Court is to dispose of the writ petition on its merits in accordance with law.
• All parties are granted liberty to amend their respective pleadings before the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a court should decide a case on its merits and not on the basis of an incorrect statement made by a counsel. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural errors should not prevent a case from being decided on its merits. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reaffirms the importance of a fair hearing based on the facts and legal issues involved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the writ petition for a fresh hearing on merits. The decision was based on the fact that the High Court had disposed of the writ petition based on an incorrect statement made by the Union of India’s counsel, without considering the merits of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for cases to be decided on their merits and granted liberty to the parties to amend their pleadings.