Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 4 May, 2022

Author: C.Hari Shankar

Bench: C.Hari Shankar

                          $~112(Appellate Side)
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     W.P.(C) 12180/2019
                                SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
                                              Through: Ms. Aparna Bhat and Ms.
                                                       Karishma Maria, Advocates

                                                    versus

                                UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.              ..... Respondents
                                              Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari,
                                                        Advocate
                                                        Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with
                                                        Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Advocate
                                                        for R-1/UOI

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
                                                    ORDER

% 04.05.2022

1. Learned Counsel for Respondent 2 seriously opposes issuance of notice in this petition, submitting that there was an interdiction against the High Court entertaining petitions dealing with the allocation of fuel in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). Ms. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in this context, points out that the present petition was initially filed in the Supreme Court as WP (C) 1440/2018, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 10th December, 2018, specifically noting the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that she was intending to move the High Court. Inasmuch as the present proceedings have been filed consequent to the said order, she submits that the contention, of Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, that the present petition should not be entertained, is without merit.

2. Ms. Maheshwari submits that no liberty was granted by the Supreme Court, in its order dated 10th December, 2018, to file the present petition and that this petition essentially is in the nature of a forum hunting expedition. She also places reliance on the order dated 26th July, 2018, passed by the Supreme Court in WP(C) 13381/1984 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India). A reading of the said order reveals that the Supreme Court, has, therein, requested the Allahabad High Court not to entertain any petition with regard to the setting up, expansion, and allocation of fuel in the TTZ, as the Supreme Court was looking into the entire issue.

3. Ms. Maheshwari also submits that the present petition is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Notice is yet to issue in this matter. All the objections raised by Ms. Maheshwari would be open to be urged in the reply to be filed in response to this petition.

5. Needless to say, if this Court is convinced that, in fact, the orders passed by the Supreme Court interdict this Court from entertaining this matter, the Court could always pass orders at the appropriate stage.

6. Before doing so, however, I am of the opinion that the exact stand of the respondents in this regard should be available on affidavit.

7. In view thereof, issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Notice is accepted on behalf of Respondent 1 by Mr. Kushagra Kumar and on behalf of Respondent 2 by Ms. Purnima Maheshwari.

8. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioners, who may file rejoinder thereto, before the next date of hearing.

9. Re-notify on 19th September, 2022.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J MAY 4, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI W.P.(C) 12180/2019 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:06.05.2022 17:41:01