1999 (7) TMI 677 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice.
2. Restoration of status quo ante.
3. Discretion of the court under Article 32 and Article 226.

Summary:

1. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The dispute arose when the Land & Development Officer allotted a plot at San Martin Marg to Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPC) without notifying Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) or its dealer, the applicant. This allotment was based on a Supreme Court order dated 28.4.1997, which was later recalled on 7.4.1998. Consequently, the plot was restored to HPCL without notifying BPC, leading to claims of violation of natural justice by both parties.

2. Restoration of Status Quo Ante:
The Supreme Court's order dated 7.4.1998, which recalled its earlier order, necessitated the restoration of the status quo ante. The Government's subsequent order dated 10.3.1999 restored the San Martin Marg plot to HPCL, which was initially allotted to it on 10.7.1996. This restoration was challenged by BPC on the grounds of lack of notice, but the court emphasized that restitution was mandatory to undo the effects of the recalled order.

3. Discretion of the Court under Article 32 and Article 226:
The court deliberated whether it was bound to declare an order void solely due to a breach of natural justice or if it could refuse relief based on the facts. The court cited precedents where relief was refused despite breaches of natural justice, emphasizing that the court's discretion could be exercised if no de facto prejudice was shown or if restoring the earlier order would perpetuate another breach of natural justice. The court concluded that on the admitted and indisputable facts, it was mandatory to restore the status quo ante, thus dismissing BPC's IA and allowing the applicant's IA 481.

Conclusion:
The court held that HPCL should retain the San Martin Marg plot, and BPC could not claim both the Ridge and San Martin Marg plots. The decision was based on the principle of restitution and the lack of de facto prejudice to BPC, aligning with the exception laid down in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan.