Supreme Court - Daily OrdersM/S. J.K. Oil Industries vs State Of J.&K. . on 8 May, 2015Bench:A.K. Sikri,Rohinton Fali NarimanIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1860 OF 2005


                      M/S. J.K. OIL INDUSTRIES                                ... Appellant

                                                     VERSUS

                      STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.                         ... Respondents



                                                    O R D E RThe Government of Jammu and Kashmir, i.e., respondent

                      herein came out with an industrial policy for grant of

                      incentives and subsidies to new industries for five years

                      or   the   existing   units   for       a   specified   period.    This

                      industrial policy was promulgated vide Government's Order

                      No. 202/1998 dated 27.05.1998.               The Government of India

                      also issued SRO 252 regarding exemption from payment of

                      toll tax by the industrial units and later issued another

                      SRO 139 inserting minor deviation to the first SRO 252.                 On

                      30.03.2000, the State of Jammu and Kashmir issued another

                      SRO 80 which levied additional toll on the goods entering

                      into the State of Jammu and Kashmir and taken out of the

                      State, on ad-valorem basis.         Challenging this action of the

                      State of Jammu and Kashmir, the appellant herein filed the

                      writ petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.Signature Not VerifiedVires of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Jammu andDigitally signed byMeenakshi KohliDate: 2015.05.1816:04:30 ISTReason:               Kashmir Levy of Tolls Act, 1995 whereunder the aforesaid

                      notification    dated    30.03.2000          was   issued,   was   alsoC.A. No. 1860/ 2005                                  1challenged.          This writ petition was allowed by the High

    Court    vide       its   judgment      dated    22.07.2004        following    the

    judgment of this Court in'Hans Raj and Sons v. State of

    Jammu and Kashmir and others' [2002 (6) SCC 227].                          The case

    was thus decided in favour of the appellant herein.                             The

    operative portion ofthe said judgmentreads as under: -“In the result, the writ petitions as well as
          the letters patent appeals are allowed.          The
          impugned notification SRO 80 dated 30.03.2000 is
          quashed and the respondents are restrained from
          giving effect to the provisions of Section 3(5) of
          the Levy of Tolls Act.       The impugned order of
          learned Single Judge is also set aside. There will
          be no order as to costs.”


            The     respondent        herein       filed   the    review       petition

    thereafter, being Review Petition No. 10 of 2004 seeking

    review of orders dated 22.07.2004 on the ground that there

    was    an    amendment       in   the   aforesaid       provision      which    was

    carried out on 17.07.2002 and in view of this amendment,

    the position in law stood changed.                     This Review Petition

    came up for hearing before the High Court on 20.12.2004 and

    was allowed by the High Court on the same day holding that

    the order quashing SRO 80 dated 30.03.2000 and restraining

    the    State    and       its   officials      from    giving      preference    to

    Section 3(5) of Levy of Tolls Act, will not apply to the

    subsequent period, i.e., after amendment dated 17th July,

    2002.        It is this order which is under challenge in the

    present appeal.           The submission which is made by Mr. Pramod

    Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,

    is    that    the    aforesaid     review       petition     has    been    allowedC.A. No. 1860/ 2005                            2without even issuing any notice to the appellant herein.

    This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the

    respondent.       Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned

    order becomes unsustainable as it was passed behind the

    back of the appellant and to its prejudice.             We thus, allow

    this appeal and set aside the impugned order and remit the

    case back to the High Court to decide the Review Petition

    No.    10/2004     afresh   after       giving   due   notice   to   the

    respondent as well as an opportunity to the appellant to

    file its reply to the same and after according hearing to

    both the parties........................., J.[ A.K. SIKRI ]



                                            ........................, J.[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

    New Delhi;May 08, 2015.C.A. No. 1860/ 2005                     3ITEM NO.103                    COURT NO.13               SECTION IIIA

                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal    No(s).   1860/2005

M/S. J.K. OIL INDUSTRIES                                Appellant(s)

                                     VERSUS

STATE OF J.&K. & ORS.                                   Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
judgment and office report)

Date : 08/05/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s)
                       Mr.   Pramod Kohli, Sr. Adv.
                       Mr.   Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv.
                       Ms.   Ammu Suresh, Adv.Mr.   S. K. Sabharwal, Adv.For Respondent(s)
                       Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.Mr. D. P. Mohanty, Adv.
                       Ms. Sanjana Ramachandran, Adv.
                       M/s. Parekh & Co.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

           The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.(Nidhi Ahuja)                               (Suman Jain)
       COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER[Signed order is placed on the file.]C.A. No. 1860/ 2005                   4