2013 (3) TMI 613 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the writ petition filed by the respondentcompany was premature, the same having been filed against an inter-departmental communication that did not finally determine any right or obligation of the parties? Whether the show cause notice could be ignored by the High Court simply because it had been issued in violation of the interim order passed by it requiring the parties to maintain status quo? Whether the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and could, therefore, be quashed?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Prematurity of the writ petition.
2. Validity of the show cause notice in light of the status quo order.
3. Jurisdiction and validity of the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Prematurity of the Writ Petition

The writ petition was filed against an inter-departmental communication that did not finally determine any right or obligation of the parties. The communication from the Director of Mines was in response to instructions from the Joint Secretary, Government of Orissa, which included assessing the requirement of the respondent-company and resuming excess area for reallocation. The communication was provisional, and no final decision had been taken by the Government. The High Court erred in assuming a final decision had been made and quashing the inter-departmental communication. The writ petition was thus premature and should have been disposed of as such.

Issue 2: Validity of the Show Cause Notice in Light of the Status Quo Order

The High Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, but it was arguable whether this order prevented the State Government from issuing a show cause notice. The notice did not interfere with the status quo but enabled the respondent-company to respond to the proposed action. The High Court should have directed the respondent-company to respond to the notice and reserved liberty to it to take recourse to suitable remedies depending on the final order of the Government. The High Court could not ignore the notice even if it was issued in breach of its order. The proper course was to relegate the parties to a procedure that was just and fair.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Validity of the Show Cause Notice

The validity of the show cause notice was not questioned before the High Court. The State Government could, in appropriate situations, recall or modify its recommendations, but the present case did not justify such a recall. The notice was not without jurisdiction, and the grounds for the proposed action should be decided by the Government. The contentions of both parties regarding the grounds of the notice were left open for determination by the competent authority in the Government. The Government should carefully consider the reply of the respondent and pass a reasoned order.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment and order were set aside, and the respondent-company was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within three months. The Government was to pass a reasoned order within two months thereafter. The respondent-company was given liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings if the order was found unacceptable. Parties were left to bear their own costs.