2008 (7) TMI 948 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant-Company is right that after the writ petition was disposed of on September 6, 1999 wherein balance quantity of 1008 MTs of coal was directed to be allotted to the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge was not justified in passing an order on September 13, 1999 on mentioning of the matter without there being any application for modification/clarification of the order dated September 6, 1999?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Delay and Laches
3. Right-Duty Relationship and Estoppel
4. Modification of Court Orders

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The appellant-Company contended that the High Court of Calcutta lacked territorial jurisdiction as the transaction and parties were based in Dhanbad. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the Company's counsel did not object to jurisdiction during the initial hearing and even requested a "usual order." Consequently, the Court held that it was inappropriate to set aside the order on jurisdictional grounds.

2. Delay and Laches:
The Company argued that the writ petition filed after a decade was barred by delay and laches. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that under Article 226, relief can be refused due to inordinate delay. The Court cited precedents, including *Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi* and *Rabindra Nath Bose v. Union of India*, which underscore the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the importance of timely petitions. Despite recognizing the delay, the Court extended the benefit of the initial order due to the Company's counsel's statement in court.

3. Right-Duty Relationship and Estoppel:
The Company asserted that the respondent had no right to demand additional coal as they had accepted the initial offer without protest. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent had already received the consideration for the land and the coal as per the policy at the time. The Court found merit in the Company's argument that the respondent was estopped from claiming additional coal due to his acceptance of the initial offer. However, the Court upheld the initial order granting 1008 MTs of coal based on the counsel's statement.

4. Modification of Court Orders:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the modification of the initial order by the learned single Judge, which increased the coal allotment from 1008 MTs to 6800 MTs without a formal application. The Court ruled this modification as unjustified and beyond jurisdiction, stating that the Division Bench should have interfered with this order. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the modification order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, affirming the respondent's entitlement to 1008 MTs of coal as initially ordered and an additional 1008 MTs based on the "usual order" statement by the Company's counsel. However, the Court set aside the subsequent order increasing the allotment to 6800 MTs, deeming it unjustified. The appeal was thus allowed in part, with no order as to costs.