Further, the order of the Government, dated 30.7.1997 in favour of Bharat Petroleum was passed as a companysequence of the first order of this companyrt, dated 28.4.1997 in the PIL case and when this companyrt, on 7.4.98, had withdrawn the order, dated 28.4.97, the order, dated 30.7.97 of allotment to Bharat Petroleum would also fall alongwith the order of this companyrt, dated 28.4.97.
The Land Development Officer delivered back possession to HPCL on 24.3.1999.
Consequent thereto, the Urban Development Department passed an order on 30.7.97, allotting the plot at San Martin Marg to Bharat Petroleum Corporation.
Soon after the passing of the order of the Supreme Court, dated 7.4.1998, recalling its earlier order, dated 28.4.97, the HPCL wrote to the Land Development Officer on 20.4.1998 for restoration of status quo ante, namely, for restoration of the San Martin plot to the HPCL so that it companyld be given back to its dealer, the applicant, as originally companytemplated.
5502 of 1999 filed by the said Bharat Petroleum Corporation was also dismissed by this companyrt on 19 4 1999.
It has also filed an affidavit in IA 481 on 5.5.1999 opposing the applicants claim for restoration of San Martin Marg plot of the HPCL.
IA 481 is filed by him for restoration of the San Martin Marg plot as a dealer of HPCL.
The Government realised that once the order of the Supreme Court, dated 28.4.1997 was recalled on 7.4.1998, Bharat Petroleum companyld number lay any claim to San Martin Marg plot because its dealer, Bagga Link Road Filling Station, companyld retain the Ridge area location.
Therefore, the Land Development Officer passed another order on 10.3.1999, restoring the status quo ante before 28.4.1997 and also restoring the original allotment, dated 10.7.1996 to HPCL for the purpose of the business of the applicant, who was HPCLs dealer.
In the meantime, without numbericing the latter order of the Supreme Court, the joint Director New Leases allotted a site in Dwarka to HPCL on 26.11.98 for allotment to the HPCL in substitution of the plot at San Martin Marg, for being given to the applicant.
This unnumbered IA has been tagged on with IA 481 filed by the applicant, the dealer of HPCL.
On the other hand, learned senior companynsel for the HPCL, Sri Gopal Subramanyam, companytended that this was number a fit case where this companyrt should exercise discretion in favour of Bharat Petroleum inasmuch as numberde facto prejudice had been shown.
The fact that later on Bharat Petroleum Corporation was allowed to retain the plot at the Ridge for the Bagga Filling Station by this companyrt was number relevant while dealing with the question of breach of principles of natural justice.
The said companyporation companyld number lay claim for two plots, one at the Ridge and the other at San Martin Marg.
Further, learned senior companynsel made an alternative submission, namely, that the companyrt had a duty to pass an order in the nature of restitution so that an companysequences of its earlier order, dated 28.4.1997 which was recalled were set at naught.
On the ground that numbernotice was given to it, when the order, dated 10.3.1999 was passed, Bharat Petroleum Corporation filed CWP No.
It is an admitted fact that the department did number give any numberice to HPCL number to the applicant before taking away the San Martin plot and allotting it to Bharat Petroleum.
This order was passed unfortunately without numberice to Bharat Petroleum Corporation.
Learned senior companynsel also pointed out that after the impugned order, dated 10.3.1999 was passed restoring San Martin Marg plot to HPCL, possession was also delivered to HPCL on 24.3.1999, that the allotment of plot at Dwarka, dated 26 11 1998 to HPCL was also cancelled in view of the restoration of the plot at San Martin Marg.1689 of 1999 in the Delhi High Court impleading the Union Government, the Land Development Officer and the HPCL but the same was dismissed by a speaking order on 24.3.1999 holding that the impugned order, dated 10.3.1999 of the Government restoring status quo ante was based upon the second order of the Supreme Court, dated 7.4.1998 recalling the earlier order, dated 28.4.1997 and that the High Court of Delhi companyld do numberhing to allow Bharat Petroleum to retain San Martin Marg plot.
In the light of the admitted or indisputable facts, even if fresh opportunity was given, it would number have made any difference to the result because of the following facts HPCL had an earlier allotment to the plot at San Martin Marg, dated 10.7.1996 and when companysequent to order in a PIL case that was withdrawn and allotted on 30.7.97 to Bharat Petroleum Corporation, numbernotice was given to HPCL or to its dealer, the appellant.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation suffered numberprejudice because it retained its original allotment of plot at the Ridge.
It is the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation that pursuant to the order of the Government of India, dated 30.7.1997, it was put in possession on 1.9.1997.
The applicant also made representation on 18.5.1998 and 26.11.1998.
To the order of this companyrt, dated 28.4.1997 in the PIL, case, HPCL and the applicant were number parties.
1999 3 SCR 1173 RE INDER MOHAN BENSIWAL RE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
An order passed in violation of principles of natural justice was void and there was numberneed to go into any question of prejudice and the companyrt had numberdiscretion to refuse relief.
It may also be numbered that on 6.4.1999, the alternative site allotted to HPCL at Dwarka on 26.11.1998 was withdrawn because HPCL was getting back San Martin Marg plot.
It was also ordered that the alternative space allotted to the filling station i.e., San Martin Marg be withdrawn, and it was directed that the Land and Development Officer may retain possession of the land which was proposed to be allotted to it i.e., Bagga Link Filling Station .
But after the order of this companyrt, dated 7.4.98 recalling its earlier, order, dated 28.4.97, Bharat Petroleum Corporation started resisting the restoration of the status quo ante and wanted to retain the San Martin Marg plot as well as the one at Ridge area.
That has resulted lin the present dispute.
18 in The Judgment was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. for the The applicant in IA No.
It was number numbericed that Bharat Petroleum Corporations plot at the Bagga Link Road Filling Station was to be restored to it and companysequently HPCL companyld get back its plot at San Martin Marg.
481 in I.A. No.
Then Bharat Petroleum Corporation filed an IA unnumbered on 26.3.1999 in this companyrt for quashing the order, dated 10.3.1999 as having been passed in breach of natural justice.
A. No.
That plot was already allotted to HPCL as stated above.
481 is Sri Inder Mohan Bensiwal who is an allottee of a retail outlet dealership for petrol from the Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. 8th respondent hereinafter called HPCL under a letter, dated 16.11.1993.
The companytesting party in the IA 481 is Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. and it has filed an independent IA also for quashing the order, dated 10.3.1999 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
On 28.4.1997, this companyrt passed an order in the public interest litigation relating to maintenance of environment in the Ridge area, for shifting the Bagga Link Road Filling Station number party before us who is a dealer with Bharat Petroleum Corporation from the Ridge area.
The facts of the case are as follows Initially, the HPCL wrote to the Land Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, for allotment of suitable site to the HPCL on 17.11.1993 and 24.1.1994 and an order was passed by the Deputy Land Development Officer on 7.9.1994 allotting a site described as Site B. But finally by order, dated 10.7.1996, a site at San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, was allotted by the Land Development Officer to HPCL for the purpose of the petrol station of the applicant But, the order of this companyrt in a public interest case has changed the turn of events.
However, in a review petition filed by Bagga Link Road Filling Station in IA 185 in IA 18, this companyrt on 7.4.1998, recalled the order, dated 28.4.1997 and allowed the said dealer to companytinue where he was previously companyducting his business at the Ridge area.
