Jayaswal Neco Industriesl Ltd. vs Tata Steel Ltd & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2102 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 227/2009 & CM Nos. 7224-7226/2009

       JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIESL LTD.                      ..... Appellant
                        Through Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Senior Advocate
                        with Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Mr. Tushar Bakshi,
                        Advocates.
                 versus

       TATA STEEL LTD & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                       Through Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee and Mr. Ravindra
                       Shrivastava, Senior Advocates with Mr. Gopal Jain, Ms.
                       Nandini Gore, Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Ms. Sonia Nigam,
                       Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar, Ms. Meghna Mishra, Ms. Supriya
                       Jain and Mr. K. Krishan Kumar, Advocates for Respondent
                       No. 1.
                       Mr. S. Singh, Mr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon, Mr. Anurag
                       Kumar and Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocates for Respondent
                       No. 2./UOI.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

                 ORDER

% 18.05.2009

The present appeal arises out of order of the learned single Judge dated 27.4.2009.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows.

2. The respondent no. 1 (original petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition) had entered

into an MOU with the State of Chattishgarh for establishing a steel plant. The respondent

no. 1 applied for grant of mining lease in respect of certain areas. These applications

overlapped with some of the area for which the appellant had applied for a mining lease.

The State rejected the respondent no. 1's application on several counts. The application

of the appellant was also rejected. The State Government by another order rejected the

respondent no. 1's application for prospecting licence. The appellant in the meanwhile

challenged the order of rejection through a revision petition before the Tribunal which

was allowed vide order dated 28.9.2007. The respondent no. 1 at this stage moved the

Delhi High Court by filing writ petition 9260/2007 contending that the Tribunal had

wrongly granted preferential rights to appellant and that the same had a direct bearing on

its rights. It also challenged in the said writ petition rejection of its mining lease

application. However, later the respondent no. 1 on 9.1.2008 filed a revision petition

before the Mines Tribunal challenging the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the State

Government rejecting its mining application. The order in that revision petition is the

subject matter of the present writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The Mines

Tribunal on 29.5.2008 admitted respondent no. 1 revision petition. The revision petition

of the respondent no. 1 was admitted subject to the exclusion of the area covered in the

revision petition of the appellant which was disposed of by its earlier order dated

28.9.2007. The respondent no. 1 challenged the limited admission of its revision petition

before this Hon'ble Court vide writ petition 5780/2008. Vide order dated 11.8.2008 this

Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition setting aside that portion of the order of the

Mines Tribunal that excluded the area covered under the revision application filed by the

appellant with a direction to the Mines Tribunal to hear all the parties on this aspect of

the matter after issuing notice to all the parties concerned. The appellant also filed a writ

petition being WP(C) No. 6298/2008 in respect of the very same order by the Tribunal

dated 29.5.2008 by which the Tribunal had admitted and issued limited notice in the

respondent no. 1's revision petition. The respondent contention was that the Tribunal

could not have admitted the revision petition of respondent no. 1 without first considering

impleadment application of the appellant. The impugned order of the Mines Tribunal

was consequently quashed. This Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition filed

by the respondent no. 1 directing the Mines Tribunal to consider the application for

impleadment of the appellant after giving notice to all the concerned parties.

3. In the meanwhile the respondent no. 1's writ proceedings being 9260/2007 which

had challenged the order of the State Government rejecting its mining lease application

was considered on 13.1.2009 when a Division Bench of this Court permitted the

respondent no. 1 to move an application for impleadment before the Mines Tribunal. The

Mines Tribunal heard the parties including respondent no. 1 in its revision proceedings

along with an application for condonation of delay. It refused to condone the delay and

rejected the application. The respondent no. 1 in the writ petition has contended that the

Tribunal fell into error in declining to condone the delay occasioned in the filing of the

revision petition. Its contention was that in such cases the approach of the Tribunal has

to be broad and liberal one.

4. The learned single Judge has observed that both the parties had been repeatedly

approaching this Court. The learned single Judge after discussing the law on delay and

laches has rightly observed that the Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach and

ought to have condoned the delay. As held by the Supreme Court in Vedabai Vs.

Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 in exercising discretion under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. The Court has to

exercise discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing expression

sufficient cause principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. The

learned single Judge has rightly noticed the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.

Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishanmoorthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 wherein it was held that rules of

limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that the

parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. There is no

presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. Supreme Court

further observed in the said judgment that in every case of delay there can be some lapse

on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and

to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of malafides or it is not

put forth as part of dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the

suitor.

5. In the facts of the present case the learned single Judge has correctly come to the

conclusion that the Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach as indicated by the

Supreme Court. In the present case equities would be properly balanced if the Tribunal

was to consider the rival contentions of the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

This is not a case where any irretrievable prejudice will be caused to the appellant if the

Tribunal entertains the revision petition of the respondent no. 1 as well.

6. In the light of what has been stated hereinabove the appeal must fail. The appeal

is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J MAY 18, 2009 dk