Madras High Court
Union Of India vs Saheli Exports Pvt. Ltd on 2 July, 2021
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.9676 of 2021
Union of India,
Rep. by the Deputy Secretary
to Government of India,
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001. .. Appellant
Vs
1.Saheli Exports Pvt. Ltd.,
No.25, Sir Madhavan Nair Road,
Mahalingapuram,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.GAIL (India) Limited,
GAIL Building,
16, Bhikaji Cama Place,
R.K.Puram, Ring Road,
New Delhi - 110 066.
3.GAIL (India) Limited,
Represented by Zonal General Manager,
7A, Kences Towers,
No.1,Ramakrishna Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 07.01.2021 made in W.P.No.13064 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan
Addl. Solicitor General
for Mr.S.Diwakar
For Respondents : Mr.Vinod Kumar for R1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal lies in a very narrow compass. This is with respect to
the renewal of allotment of gas which was granted originally based
upon the foundational facts, which according to the appellant, do not
exist as of now.
2. The learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the
appellant and remanded the matter with the direction to the appellant
to furnish copies of the communication relied upon by the first
respondent/writ petitioner within a reasonable time and afford an
opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter consider the reply
given. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
appellant submitted that there is no need for the same officer who
issued the show-cause notice to pass the final order. We are dealing
with the administrative order though having its own civil
consequences. It is further submitted that the question of furnishing
the documents as sought for would not arise as it is for the first
respondent/writ petitioner to rely upon the same. One has to apply the
principle of prejudice that might possibly occur in the non-furnishing of
the documents in the event of an adverse order being passed against
the first respondent. If these two aspects are clarified then grant of
personal hearing would not be opposed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that what has been passed is only an order of
remand and, therefore, no interference is required.
5. As against the order of remand, we do not wish to interfere as
the learned Single Judge felt that the first respondent/writ petitioner is
entitled for a personal hearing. Inasmuch as we are confirming the
remand order the question of the earlier officer hearing and therefore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
the subsequent officer cannot hear would not arise for consideration.
Once a remand is made, the matter is at large. The present incumbent
is entitled to proceed afresh after hearing the first respondent and
after considering the relevant materials by passing a speaking order.
6. Therefore, the only other question for consideration is with
respect to the communications directed to be furnished by the
appellant. On this, we find force in the submission made by the
learned Additional Solicitor General. At this stage, nobody knows about
the need and relevancy of the aforesaid documents.
7. Principle of natural justice has got two facets. The second
facet deals with the prejudice to be caused for the non-furnishing of
the documents, which the party who alleges has to prove. In such view
of the matter, the direction of the learned Single Judge to mandatorily
furnish the documents which are nothing but communication is not
required. However, it is open to the first respondent to take such a
plea which has to be taken note of while passing the final order. Suffice
it to state that we do not wish to go into the said issue in this
proceedings. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the learned Single
Judge stands set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
8. The writ appeal stands disposed of by directing the appellant
to consider the representation to be given by the first respondent/writ
petitioner afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment and on receipt of the same within the time as
aforesaid, the appellant will have to afford a personal hearing either
through video conference or in person to the first respondent within a
further period of two weeks. Thereafter, appropriate orders will have
to be passed within four weeks. We once again make it clear that all
the issues both on law and facts are left open. We expect the appellant
to pass a speaking order on the representation/objection already given
or to be given as aforesaid by the first respondent/writ petitioner. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
02.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
To
1.GAIL (India) Limited,
GAIL Building,
16, Bhikaji Cama Place,
R.K.Puram, Ring Road,
New Delhi - 110 066.
2.GAIL (India) Limited,
Represented by Zonal General Manager,
7A, Kences Towers,
No.1,Ramakrishna Street,
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.1529 of 2021
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
