9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 684 - HC - GSTPermission for withdrawal of writ petition and grant liberty to pursue the matter before advance ruling authority (AAR ) - Acceptance of a bid - award of a contract - application for advance ruling - While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has imposed cost of ₹ 5 Lacs - HELD THAT - the learned Single Judge in order to draw a curtain on the litigation at that stage had already been offered an opportunity to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. In our view, once such a request has been made, and unless there are any unrepresented third party rights that may be affected, or any of the contingencies mentioned in the judgments referred to herein above exist, it is always ordinarily an acceptable position that the Court should not proceed to adjudicate the matter and permit withdrawal on such conditions that may be necessary. In the instant case, we find no party unrepresented in the litigation being affected by the appellant seeking liberty to pursue his application before the Advance Ruling Authority. To this extent, the fourth respondent cannot have any objection, in as much as he has no locus to question the moving of an application by the appellant before the Advance Ruling Authority and pursuing the same, which application admittedly was not disposed of due to the pendency of the writ petition itself. There are no valid reason for imposing costs on the appellant - appellant, therefore, had a right to withdraw the writ petition and having exercised that right, there was no legal impediment in granting permission to the appellant to withdraw the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the impugned judgment. 2. Right to withdraw a writ petition and the imposition of costs. 3. Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to writ petitions. 4. Validity of the appellant's application before the Advance Ruling Authority. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the Observations and Directions in Paragraphs (41) and (42) of the Impugned Judgment: The appellant challenged the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the judgment dated 28.2.2020. The court had expressed deep displeasure over the appellant's counsel's endorsement to withdraw the writ petition with liberty, labeling it as a lack of professional ethics and denying any liberty to the petitioner. The court also imposed costs of ?5,00,000 on each writ petitioner, directing them to pay to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court of Madras. 2. Right to Withdraw a Writ Petition and the Imposition of Costs: The appellant argued that the endorsement for withdrawal was made in good faith to pursue an application before the Advance Ruling Authority, which was pending. The learned counsel contended that the court's refusal to allow withdrawal and the imposition of costs were unjustified. The court acknowledged that the right to withdraw a claim is almost absolute, subject to certain limitations. It emphasized that once a request for withdrawal is made, the court should not proceed to adjudicate the matter unless there are unrepresented third-party rights or other contingencies. 3. Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to Writ Petitions: The principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which govern the withdrawal of suits, were deemed applicable to writ petitions based on public policy. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which extended these principles to writ petitions to prevent bench-hunting and ensure the administration of justice. The court also cited other relevant judgments to support this view, including Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and Kandapazha Nadar v. Chitraganiammal. 4. Validity of the Appellant's Application Before the Advance Ruling Authority: The appellant had filed an application for advance ruling on the applicability of Goods and Service Tax concerning the tender. The court noted that the Advance Ruling Authority had not decided the application due to the pending writ petition. The learned Single Judge had earlier observed that the pendency of the writ petition should not preclude the Advance Ruling Authority from deciding the application. The court found that the appellant's pursuit of the application was bona fide and not an attempt at forum shopping. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appellant had a right to withdraw the writ petition and that the observations and directions in paragraphs (41) and (42) of the impugned judgment were not justified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside paragraphs (41) and (42) concerning the appellant. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the appellant's right to pursue the application before the Advance Ruling Authority. No costs were imposed.
|
