Holding

The Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition and the Special Leave Petition, directing the Chhattisgarh High Court to consolidate and hear all pending writ petitions, writ appeals and to transfer the civil suits to its jurisdiction.

Summary

The Supreme Court was approached by M/s Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. seeking transfer of several writ petitions, writ appeals and civil suits pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court and lower courts, and by the respondents challenging the transfer. The petitioners argued that the multitude of proceedings were being used to circumvent the effect of the Court’s earlier decision in TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. The Court examined whether the transfer petition and the accompanying Special Leave Petition should be disposed of and whether the High Court could be directed to consolidate and hear all the pending matters. It held that the interests of justice required a unified hearing and therefore disposed of both the transfer petition and the SLP, directing the Chhattisgarh High Court to hear all writ petitions and writ appeals together and to transfer the civil suits to its jurisdiction, with specific dates for appearance and hearing. The parties were also allowed to seek modification or vacation of the impugned order before the High Court. The transfer petition, SLP and related applications were consequently disposed of with the prescribed directions.

Issues considered

Whether the transfer petition and the Special Leave Petition should be disposed of with directions for consolidation of pending writ petitions, writ appeals and civil suits in the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Whether the High Court may transfer and hear civil suits pending before lower courts together with the writ matters.
Whether the parties may approach the High Court for modification or vacation of the impugned order after the Supreme Court’s directions.

Subjects

transfer petitionspecial leave petitionwrit petitionwrit appealcivil suitconsolidation of casesjurisdictionhigh courtsupreme courtprocedural directionsChhattisgarh

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 182

A MIS MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD.
II.
B.L. WADHERA & ORS.
(TranSfer Petition (Civil) No. 813 of 2007)
JANUARY 29, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) -1'
t
Transfer of Cases:
Transfer petition - Seeking transfer of certain writ
c petitions, writ appeals pending before Chattisgarh High Court
and certain suits pending before civil courts in the State - Order
of High Court challenged before Supreme Court in SLP -
HELD: Transfer petition and SLP disposed of with directions,
inter alia: parties would appear on given date before the Bench
D presided over by the Chief Justice of High Court - All writ
petitions would be tagged and would be heard along with writ
appeals by a Division Bench - Bench presided over by the ...,.. -1·
Chief Justice would transfer civil suits pending before lower
courts to High Court to be taken up alongwith the writ petitions
E and writ appeals - If cases involving dispute pending before
High Court are instituted after instant order, the same would ~---

be trarr§ferred to and heard by said Division Bench of the High ~
~

Court - Petitioners in SLP would be at liberty to seek
modification/vacation of order impugned therein before
Division Bench of High Court.
F f'
TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and
Ors. [2006] 5 SCC 28 - cited.
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Transfer
Petition (Civil) No. 813 of 2007.
G ,,
WITH )-

SLP(C) No. 21632 of 2007, SLP(C) No. 20238 of 2006,
Cont.Pet.(C) No. 27512007 in SLP(C) No. 20238/2006 and
Cont.Pet(C) No. 14/2008 in T.P.(C) No. 813/2007.
H 182
-+ M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD. v. 183
B.L. WADHERA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
-- ·~
Mukul Rohtagi, Ranjit Kumar, V. Krishnamurthy, Ram
Jethmalani, C.S. Vaidyanathan, C. Mukhopadhya, Amit Sibbal,
A

T. Raja, M/S. Suresh A. Shroff & Co. and Senthil Jagadeesan
for the Petitioner.
Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., P.P. Rao, Ashok H. Desai,
K.K. Venugopal, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Ajit Kumar Sinha, B
+- Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Rudreshwar Singh, Kaushik Poddar,
' Kumar Ranjan, Gopal Kumar Jha, Sanjay jain, Sameer Parekh
(for MIS Parekh And Co.), Vishwajit Singh, Arvind Kumar Shukla,
D.D. Karnath, Shweta Garg, Devadatt Kamat, D.S. Mahra,
Suparna Srivastava and Rajesh Srivastava for the Respondents. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Amendment D
allowed.
.> ~
In the transfer petition, prayer is made for transfer of certain
Writ Petitions before the Chhatisgarh High Court, Writ Appeals
and Suits filed before the Lower Court in the State of Chattisgarh.
In S.L.P. (C) No.21632 of 2007, challenge is to the interim order E
dated 31.10.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No.267 of 2007.
·Learned counsel for the petitioners in the Transfer Petition
and the Special Leave Petition submitted that though the subject
matter of controversy in all the aforesaid cases is broadly covered
,..\. F
~
by a decision of this Court in IN. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs.
· Union of India and Ors. (2006 (5) sec 28), the fresh rounds of
litigation have been and/or are being started with the sole object of
taking away the effect of the judgment in the said case. This is
stoutly denied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
G
.-( Considering the nature of the controversy, we feel that
interest of justice would be best served if the Transfer Petition
(along with I.A. Nos.2 and 3 in the Transfer Petition) and the
Special Leave Petition are disposed of on the following terms:
1. All the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals detailed in the pt
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. +- '

-l'
A Transfer Petition and the I .A. Nos.2 and 3 shall be heard
and disposed of by the High Court by 15.05.2008.
2. The parties are directed to appear before the Bench
presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High
Court, without further notice, on 11.02.2008 so that a firm
B date can be fixed for starting hearing of the Writ Petitions
and the Writ Appeals. Though the Writ Petitions are
-t
normally heard by a single Judge in the High Cour:t. in I
view of the fact that the Writ Appeals are to be heard by
the Division Bench, all those Writ Petitions shall be tagged
c on and shall be heard by a Division Bench.
3. Ir is stated that certain Suits are pending before the
Lower Courts. The Bench presided over by Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of the High Court shall transfer all such Suits
to the High Court, to be taken up along with the Writ
D Petitions and the Writ Appeals.
4. If cases concerning the nature of the dispute pending
before the High Court are instituted hereinafter, the High ....,, -<
Court shall take up them along with the Writ Petitions, Writ '>

E
Appeals and Suits which have been directed to be heard, ~
and in case of Suits, by directing transfer to the High Court
if they are filed in Lower Courts.
5. It is open to the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition
to move, if so advised, the Bench hearing the Writ Petitions,
Writ Appeals and Suits for modification/vacation of the
F +..
impugned order dated 3.1.10.2007 passed in Writ Appeal ~

No.267 of 2007.
The lransfer Petition and the Special Leave Petition are
disposed of accordingly.
G Contempt Petition No.14 of 2008 is withdrawn in view of
the orders passed above. .,... ,_
I

No orders on the application for impleadment.
R.P. Transfer petition and special leave
H petition are disposed of.