Delhi High Court - Orders
Vedanta Ltd. & Anr vs Government Of India Thr. Jt. Secretary, ... on 26 June, 2020
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
E.A.No.528/2020 in
+ O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017
VEDANTA LTD. & ANR. ....Petitioners
Through : Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Aashish Gupta, Mr. Arjun Pall, Ms.
Shriya Mishra and Mr. Anirudh
Lekhi, Advs. For P-1.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THR. JT. SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS ....Respondent
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG and Mr.
Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr.
K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Tushar
Bhardwaj, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain
and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. for
Government of India.
Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha and Ms.
Sonali Khanna, Advs. For Chennai
Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 26.06.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] E.A.No.528/2020
1. The substantive prayers made in the captioned application are as follows:
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017 page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified digitally signed byVIPIN KUMAR RAI signing date27.06.2020 01:46 "a. direct the Respondent and the 4 oil marketing companies (viz. CPCL, MRPL, GAIL and BPCL) to comply with the directions contained in the Orders dated 28 May 2020 and 4 June 2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court;
b. as a consequence thereof, restrain the Respondent and the 4 oil marketing companies (viz. CPCL, MRPL, GAIL and BPCL) from in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, acting contrary to the directions contained in the Orders dated 28 May 2020 and 4 June 2020, including pursuant to the letter dated 18 June 2020 issued by the Respondent; ..."
2. As is evident from a perusal of the extract of the prayers made in the captioned application, petitioner no.1 seeks implementation of the order dated 28.05.2020, as corrected by the order dated 04.06.2020, passed by this Court.
3. It is the contention of Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of petitioner no.1, albeit, on instructions of Mr. Arjun Pall, that the aforementioned orders [i.e. order dated 28.05.2020 and 04.06.2020] are not the subject matter of SLP(C)No.7172/2020 which is pending adjudication.
3.1 Mr. Sibal argues that the status quo order, which has been passed by the Supreme Court on 17.06.2020, in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition i.e. SLP(C) 7172/2020, does not impact the order dated 28.05.2020 read with the order dated 04.06.2020 passed by this Court in OMP(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017.
3.2 According to Mr. Sibal, the Government of India [in short "GOI"] has assailed the judgement of this Court dated 19.02.2020, passed in OMP(EFA)(COMM)No.15/2016.
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017 page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified digitally signed byVIPIN KUMAR RAI signing date27.06.2020 01:46
4. On the other hand, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned ASG, who appears on behalf of the GOI, on instructions of Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, submits that a reference to the orders dated 28.05.2020 and 04.06.2020 was made in the urgency application filed in SLP(C)7172/2020. 4.1 To be noted, the urgency application is, presently, not on record, though, it was shared on screen by Ms. Acharya 4.2 Furthermore, Ms. Acharya says the instant application is not maintainable.
5. It is Mr. Sibal's contention that not only is the instant application maintainable but that this Court should ensure compliance of its order dated 28.05.2020, read with the order dated 04.06.2020, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interdicted these orders. 5.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Sibal has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. Shramik Sena, (2001) 7 SCC 469.
5.2 In particular, Mr. Sibal relies upon the following observations made in paragraph 8 of the said judgement:
8. We have perused the impugned order of the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. Even when it was faced with diametrically apposite (sic opposite) interpretation of the judgment of this Court, it was expected of the High Court to decide the case (writ petition) on merit according to its own interpretation of the said judgment. Instead the High Court after referring to rival contentions of the parties, in para 3, observed thus:
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017 page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified digitally signed byVIPIN KUMAR RAI signing date27.06.2020 01:46 "In our view, the right course for the petitioner will be to approach the Apex Court and to seek a clarification of the said order. Mr Singhvi is agreeable to take necessary steps."
And having directed the appellants herein to take back the employees for a period of four months or until order is passed by this Court, whichever is earlier, disposed of the writ petition.
5.3 Mr. Sibal contends that this view of the Supreme Court was adopted by a Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment dated 15.07.2013, passed in W.P.(C)No.4539/2012, titled Union of India and Anr. vs. Biswabijoyee Panigarihi and Anr.
5.4 It is also the submission of Mr. Sibal that the GOI has conceded the position that the monies due to petitioner no.1 should be deposited, albeit, with the Registry of this Court, contrary to what is provided in the order dated 28.05.2020 read with the order dated 04.06.2020. In this behalf, he has referred to communications dated 18.06.2020 and 22.06.2020 addressed by Directorate General of Hydrocarbons and CPCL, respectively, to petitioner no.1.
6. Interestingly, both, the learned ASG as well as Mr. Sibal, seem to be very clear as to what the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.06.2020 provides for.
7. At this stage, I must also indicate that the order dated 29.10.2018 was passed in OMP(EFA)(COMM)No.15/2016 and OMP(EFA)(COMM.) 5/2017, wherein, a regime was set out with the consent of learned ASG for deposit of money with the Registry of this Court.
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017 page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified digitally signed byVIPIN KUMAR RAI signing date27.06.2020 01:46 7.1 As indicated hereinabove, on account of a final judgement being passed i.e. the judgement dated 19.02.2020 in OMP(EFA)(COMM)No.15/2016, the matter was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court which is the subject matter of SLP(C)No.7172/2020.
8. The order dated 28.05.2020 read with the order dated 04.06.2020 progresses the order dated 29.10.2018 inasmuch as it directs the payment of monies directly and unconditionally (by the four Oil Marketing Companies) to petitioner no.1 for the reasons given therein. 8.1 The rationale provided in the said order i.e. order dated 28.05.2020 read with the order dated 04.06.2020 is that the GOI has, available to it, security, to the extent of USD 93 million in the form of bank guarantees, referred to in paragraph 13 of the order dated 28.05.2020 and certain cash deposits and, therefore, release of monies to petitioner no.1 cannot harm its interest. This is dehors the outcome of SLP(C) No.7172/2020. 8.2 However, as the record would show, since the GOI wanted to know as to where it stood in the SLP lodged against the judgment dated 19.02.2020, I had stayed the operation of the order dated 28.05.2020 by one week, although, learned ASG, as recorded in the order dated 28.05.2020, had sought time, in that behalf, only till 01.06.2020.
9. I may only indicate that Mr. Sibal has pointed out that the urgency application filed before the Supreme Court, to which reference was made before me by the learned ASG, was not served on petitioner no.1 i.e. Vedanta Ltd.
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017 page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified digitally signed byVIPIN KUMAR RAI signing date27.06.2020 01:46
10. It is the contention of the learned ASG that the aforementioned two judgements, referred by Mr. Sibal, have no bearing on the instant case. 10.1 On this aspect, I tend to agree with the learned ASG.
11. Shramik Sena (supra) was a case where the High Court was faced with "diametrically opposite views" expressed in two separate judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Court had to interpret the judgements and take a view in the matter.
12. The instant case is a case in which the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
13. Thus, given the aforesaid circumstances, for the moment, I am inclined to only issue notice in the captioned application to get GOI's say in the matter on affidavit.
14. Issue notice.
14.1 Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu accepts notice on behalf of the GOI. 14.2 The notice shall issue to the remaining non-applicants/respondents as well via all means including e-mail.
15. Replies be filed within 10 days from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
16. Renotify the captioned application on 27.07.2020.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JUNE 26, 2020
Aj/KK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM)No.5/2017 page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
digitally signed byVIPIN
KUMAR RAI
signing date27.06.2020
01:46