AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J—Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel, accepts notice for the respondents.
The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2014 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 162 of 2012 in W.P. No. 1244 of 2001, wherein, the application for restoration of the disposed of W.P. No. 1244 of 2001, was rejected on the ground that once a final decision has been taken in a writ petition, the same cannot be restored or re-heard once again on the basis of subsequent pronouncements of law on the subject.
The facts in brief are that assailing the validity of the proceedings dated 28.10.2000 and 29.12.2000 of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, the appellant-Corporation had preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 1244 of 2001. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.12.2009, reserving liberty to the appellant to move the appropriate High Powered Committee for redressal of its grievances.
The Supreme Court, by order dated 11.10.1991, in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1995) 4 SCC 541 Supp , directed the Government of India as under:
"to set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation."
Thereafter, it was reiterated in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1994) 70 ELT 45 : (2011) 2 SCALE 498 : (2004) 6 SCC 437 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. City and Indust. Dev. Corpn., Maharashtra and Others, (2009) 233 ELT 30 : (2007) 9 JT 382 : (2007) 9 SCALE 299 : (2007) 7 SCC 39 : (2009) 13 STR 482 .
The aforestated directions were subsequently withdrawn by the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2011) 238 CTR 353 : (2011) 184 ECR 193 : (2011) 265 ELT 11 : (2011) 332 ITR 58 : (2011) 6 JT 372 : (2011) 2 SCALE 494 : (2011) 3 SCC 404 : (2011) 1 SCC(L&S) 514 : (2011) 2 SCR 971 : (2011) 21 STR 593 : (2011) 39 VST 1 : (2011) AIRSCW 3466 . Relying on the said decision, the appellant had filed the instant interim application being W.P.M.P. No. 162 of 2012 in the disposed of W.P. No. 1244 of 2001 on the ground that in view of recalling of the order of the constitution of High Powered Committee for resolution of the disputes between the Public Sector Undertakings/authorities, the disposed of writ petition be restored to its file.
The learned Single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter before coming to the conclusion that once a petition has been decided finally, the same cannot be restored or re-heard on the ground of subsequent pronouncements of law on the subject.
We have examined the entire facets of the case. On a perusal of the earlier order dated 12.12.2009 passed in W.P. No. 1244 of 2001, it is evident that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The decision was taken on merits. It was not a case of dismissal for want of prosecution. The said order was passed as under:
"In the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner, to move the appropriate High Powered Committee for redressing their grievance. If the dispute raised in the writ petition is not resolved, it is open to the petitioner to approach this Court after getting clearance from the High Power Committee. No costs."
Thereafter, the appellant, it appears, had not taken any step to approach the High Powered Committee till the Supreme Court had taken a decision in Electronics Corporation of India (supra).
Thus, at this stage, the disposed of writ petition cannot be revived or restored to its file, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant. The order sought to be impugned in this writ appeal is just and proper, warranting no interference.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.