2019 INSC 0417
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4283  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2348 of 2018)
M/s Trimex Sands Pvt. Limited 
& Anr.      ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final
judgment   and   order   dated   09.11.2017   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in     Writ
Petition   (C)   No.5734   of   2016   whereby   the   High
Court   disposed   of   the   said   writ   petition   filed   by
respondent   No.3   herein   (original   writ   petitioner
before   the   High   Court)   against   respondent   Nos.1
1

and   2   herein   (Union   of   India   and   another)   and   set
aside   the   order   dated   30.06.2016(notified   on
06.07.2016).
3. Heard   learned   counsel   on   IA   No.16352   of
2018. 
4. This   is   an   application   made   by   the   Union   of
India   through   the   Under   Secretary,   Ministry   of
Mines for appropriate directions and for disposal of
the appeal. 
5. A   few   facts   need   mention   for   the   disposal   of
the   said   application   so   also   the   appeal,   which
involves a short point.
6. By impugned order, the High Court disposed of
writ   petition   No.5734   of   2016   filed   by   respondent
No.3 herein  (original  writ petitioner  before  the High
Court)   against   respondent   Nos.1   and   2   herein
(Union of India and another).
7. The   challenge   in   the   said   writ   petition   was   to
an order dated 30.06.2016 (notified on 06.07.2016)
2

issued   by   the   respondents   of   the   writ   petition,   i.e.,
Union of India through its concerned Ministry.
8. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   High   Court   by
impugned   order   dated   09.11.2017   disposed   of   the
writ   petition   and   set   aside   the   order   dated
30.06.2016 which was impugned in the writ petition
on   the   basis   of   statement   made   by   the   learned
counsel appearing for the Union of India.
9. In   other   words,   the   High   Court   did   not
consider necessary to decide the writ petition on the
merits   of   the   controversy   in   the   light   of   the
statement   made   by   the   learned   counsel,   who
appeared   for   the   Union   of   India.     It   is   clear   from
Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order quoted  infra :
“ 9.   In   view   of   his   aforesaid   statement,   the
impugned order dated 30.06.2016 notified on
06.07.2016   is   set   aside.     The   respondents
would take further steps to process the grant
of   Exploration   License   pursuant   to   the   order
dated 05.04.2011 in accordance with law.
10.   It   is   clarified   that   this   Court   has   not
expressed   an   opinion   on   the   merits   of   the
3

dispute   between   the   parties   and   the   above
order   has   been   passed   solely   on   the   basis   of
the   statement   made   on   behalf   of
respondents.”
10. It is this order, which is now impugned by the
appellant   by   filing   the   present   special   leave   to
appeal.  Since the appellants were not parties to the
writ   petition,   they   sought   leave   to   file   the   present
special   leave   to   appeal   to   question   the   legality   and
correctness   of   the   impugned   order   in   the   present
appeal.
11. It   is   brought   to   the   notice   of   the   Court   in   the
application under consideration (IA No.16352/2018)
that   the   Union   of   India   (respondents   of   the   writ
petition)  have   filed    a   review  petition  (103/2018)   in
the   High   Court   against   the   impugned   order   dated
09.11.2017   passed   in     writ   petition   No.5734/2016,
which   is   now   the   subject   matter   of   the   present
special leave to appeal, praying therein to recall the
4

order   dated   09.11.2017.   The   review   petition   is
pending.
12. During   the   course   of   submissions,   it   has   also
been   pointed  out   that   in   another   batch   of   petitions
led   by   W.P.   No.7537   of   2018   (M/s   Standard
Metalloys   Pvt.   Ltd.   vs.   Union   of   India),   the   High
Court   passed   a   detailed   order   on   06.02.2019   and
set   aside   the   impugned   order   dated   30.06.2016   on
merits.     Be   that   as   it   may,   we   need   not   enter   into
any   other   aspect   of   the   matter   because   herein,   the
recall   is   sought   essentially   on   the   ground   that   an
incorrect   statement   was   made   by   the   learned
counsel, who appeared for the Union of India in the
said writ petition, which led for its disposal wrongly.
It is stated therein that the statement was made by
the learned counsel on the basis of incorrect/wrong
briefing made to him by the concerned official.
13. A   prayer   is,   therefore,   made   that   because
during   the   pendency  of  the   appeal  and   subsequent
5

to   passing   of   the   impugned   order,   certain   events
have also taken place, therefore, this appeal can be
disposed   of   accordingly   keeping   in   view   the
subsequent events which have occurred.
14. Though the learned counsel for the parties and
specially   the   learned   counsel   for   the   original   writ
petitioner   (respondent   No.3   herein)   opposed   the
application   under   consideration   and   urged   the
issues   arising   in   the   writ   petition   on   merits,   but
having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on   perusal   of   the   entire   record   of   the   case,   we   are
inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned
order   and   restore   Writ   Petition   No.5734   of   2016   to
its   original   number   before   the   High   Court   for   its
fresh disposal in accordance with law on merits.
15. In   our   opinion,   keeping   in   view   the   grounds
now   raised   by   the   Union   of   India   and   further   the
fact   that   the   High   Court   did   not   decide   the   writ
petition   on   merits   but   disposed   it   of   on   the
6

statement   made   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
Union   of   India,   which   was   based   on   incorrect
briefing,   we   consider   it   just   and   proper   and   in   the
interest   of   all   the   parties   concerned   that   the   writ
petition   is   heard   afresh   and   is   disposed   of   on   its
merits in accordance with law by the High Court.
16. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the
application   made   by   the   Union   of   India   (IA
No.163521   of   2018)   is   allowed.     As   a   consequence,
the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.
The   impugned   order  is   set   aside.     The   writ   petition
(No.5734   of   2016)   filed   by   respondent   No.3   herein
before   the   High   Court,   out   of   which   this   appeal
arises,   is   restored   to   its   original   number   before  the
High Court.
17. In   the   light   of   this   order,   the   review   petition
filed   by   the   Union   of   India   (No.103/2018)   stands
disposed of.
7

18. All   the   parties   are   granted   liberty   to   amend
their   respective   pleadings   before   the   High   Court   in
the  aforementioned  writ  petition  to  enable the  High
Court   to   dispose   of   the   writ   petition   on   merits   in
accordance with law. 
19. We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   we   have   not
examined   the   case   of   the   parties   on   merits   having
formed   an   opinion   to   remand   the   case   to   the   High
Court   on   the   grounds   mentioned   above   and,
therefore,   the   High   Court   will   decide   the   writ
petition   without   being   influenced   by   any
observations made this Court on merit in this order.
             ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                         
         
....……..................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 25, 2019.
8