Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2405 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 6342/2016)

(@ SLP(c)…..CC 3551/2016)

Anubhav Kumar Choudhary & Ors.         Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Delay in filing special leave petition  is condoned.  

Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  is  filed  against  the  final  judgment  

and  order  dated  08.04.2015  of  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Patna  in  CWJC  No.  5402  of  2015  

1

Page 2

whereby  the  High  Court  while  disposing  of  the  

appellant’s  writ  petition  granted  liberty  to  file  

representation  to  the  National  Thermal  Power  

Corporation (NTPC) but at the same time passed an  

order that the appellants will have no liberty to move  

the  High  Court  again  for  the  same  cause  of  action  

raised therein.

3) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant  

and have perused the record of the case.  

4) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,  

we are inclined to dispose of this appeal after granting  

leave at the admission stage itself as we are of the view  

that the same can be disposed of without notice to the  

other side.

5) In the light of the order that we have passed, it is  

neither necessary to set out the facts of the case in  

detail and as mentioned above nor necessary to issue  

notice of this appeal to the other side.   

2

Page 3

6) The impugned order  passed by the High Court  

reads as under:

“After some arguments, learned counsel  for  the  petitioners  seeks  permission  to  withdraw this application in order to enable  the petitioners to file  representation before  the  competent  authority  of  the  National  Thermal  Power  Corporation  (NTPC).   While  this  Court  would  accord  such  leave  to  the  petitioner  but  it  is  made  clear  that  the  petitioners will have now no liberty to move  this Court again for the same cause of action  raised herein.”

7) The  only  grievance  of  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant is that the High Court having rightly granted  

liberty to the appellant  to file  the representation for  

ventilating  his  grievance  before  the  NTPC  erred  in  

taking  away  his  right  to  prosecute  his  grievance,  if  

occasion arises in future depending upon the outcome  

of  his  representation.  It  is  his  submission  that  the  

appellant has every right to take recourse to all legal  

remedies as are available to him in law in the event  

any adverse order is passed on his representation or  

3

Page 4

when no orders are passed on his representation once  

made. We find force in this submission.

8) In our  considered view,  the  High Court  having  

rightly granted indulgence to the appellant to file the  

representation  to  the  NTPC  for  ventilating  his  

grievance,  should  have  also  granted  liberty  to  the  

appellant  to  take  recourse  to  all  legal  remedies  to  

challenge  the  decision  once  taken  on  his  

representation, if occasion so arises.  

9) A right to prosecute the legal remedy in the court  

of law to challenge any decision of the State or/and its  

agency is a valuable legal right of the citizen and the  

High Court could not take away such right from the  

appellant  without  assigning  any  reason.  There  is  

apparently no justifiable reason to deny the appellant  

from taking recourse to the legal remedies to prosecute  

his  grievance  in  a  Court  of  law  in  relation  to  the  

dispute,  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  the  

representation in case if occasion arises in future.  

4

Page 5

10) In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal  

in part and set aside that part of the impugned order, which  

deprives the appellant to move to the Court again in the event  

his representation is decided against him by the NTPC.

11) We, therefore, grant the appellant further liberty to take  

recourse to all legal remedies, as may be available to him in  

law,  by  approaching  appropriate  Court  to  ventilate  his  

grievance,  if  occasion  arises,  in  relation  to  the  dispute  for  

which  he  is  granted  liberty  by  the  High  Court  to  file  the  

representation.,   

                                    .……...................................J.                     [J. CHELAMESWAR]                  

                    ………..................................J.                      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi, February 29, 2016.

Page 6