Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 879 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of High Court's order - Shifting of transmission towers - Held that:- Trial Court had granted an injunction, which was vacated by the lower appellate Court and the petition filed against the order of the lower appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court on the premise that respondent No.1 had purchased the land only in December, 2005 and the building was constructed in July, 2006 knowing fully well that negotiations with the officers of appellant No.1 had failed. The learned Single Judge further observed that it would be against public interest to pass an order which may necessitate dismantling of the entire line of numerous towers erected by spending public money. Even after dismissal of the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and its failure to persuade the Court to sustain the order of injunction passed by the trial Court, respondent No.1 kept the suit pending and, at the same time, filed the second writ petition. This was a clear case of abuse of the process of the Court. It is a different thing that even in the second round, respondent No.1 could not persuade the learned Single Judge to entertain its prayer. The suit was withdrawn only after the writ appeal was entertained by the Division Bench of the High Court. This shows that respondent No.1 had availed parallel remedies and gave up its pursuit before the Civil Court only after the Division Bench of the High Court indicated its willingness to hear the writ appeal on merits. Court will not allow a party to pursue two remedies simultaneously. The proposition laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. [1976 (11) TMI 196 - Supreme Court Of India] does not help the cause of respondent No.1. Instead, the same can be relied upon for holding that the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge who had non-suited respondent No.1 on the ground that it had not only availed parallel remedies but pursued the same till the writ appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was entertained. - explanation given for not incorporating full details of the scheme in the notifications should have been accepted by the High Court and there was no justification to direct re-routing of the transmission line on the specious ground of non-compliance of the two provisions. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|