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

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

C.A.No.6612/2001

State of Kerala and Ors.                                ...Appellant (s)

Versus

Nature Lovers Movement & Ors.                           ...Respondent(s)

(With Office  Report )

With C.A.No.6613/2001 (With Office Report)

Date : 18/03/2004 This  Petition  was  called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. VARIAVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.K. SEMA

For Appellant  (s)   Mr.T.L.V. Iyer,  Sr. Adv.Mr.Jayant Bhushan,  Sr. Adv.

Mr.K.R. Sasiprabhu,Adv.

For Respondent (s): Mr. Jayant Bhushan,  Sr. Adv.Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr.Ranjit Kumar,  Sr. Adv. Ms.Anita Verma, Adv. Mr.P. Parmeswaran,Adv. Mr.V.R. Reddy,  Sr. Adv. Mr.Fazlin Anam, Adv. Mr.E.M.S. Anam, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.

(Sheetal Dhingra)                                       (Jasbir Singh )

Court Master                                               Court Master

[Signed order is placed on the file]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.6612 OF 2002 WITH C.A.No.6613/2001

State of Kerala and Ors.                            ...Appellant (s)

Versus

Nature Lovers Movement & Ors.                        ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

              These two Appeals can be disposed of by this common order.  Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

            The State of Kerala by an order dated 7th November, 1995 extended all leases in the Nelliyampathy High Range in Palakkad District for a period of twenty years.  By another order dated 10th of November, 1995 they directed return of  possession to the third respondent (in C.A.No. 6612 of 2001) from whom possession has already been taken over.

            Against these two Orders, two Public Interest Litigations bearing Nos.18378/95 (by the first respondent in C.A. NO.6612/01 and the appellant in C.A.No.6613/01) and another Writ Petition being O.P.No.18250/1995 by one Mathew were filed. 

            It appears that these two  Petitions were argued  and were thereafter adjourned.  There is dispute as to why they were adjourned but we are not concerned with the dispute.  The Government passed an order on 26th of February, 1999 canceling the order dated 7th November, 1995 stating that  the matters would be re-examined.  The Government filed an affidavit in the High Court placing the order dated 26th February, 1999 on record.  On basis of this order, the Petitioners in both the Petitions applied for permission to withdraw the Petitions.  The High Court has by the impugned Judgment not allowed such withdrawal.  It is held that these Petitions were filed probono publico  and that a simplicitor withdrawal cannot be permitted.  The High Court has proceeded to dispose of  Writ Petition No.18378 of 1995 by going into  merits and concluding that the challenge to the Orders dated 7.11.1995 and 10.11.1995 was not maintainable.  The High Court has then  without their being any relief to that effect being claimed in the Petitions or without the same being the subject matter before the Court proceeded to quash the order dated 26th February, 1999.

            By a separate one line order, the High Court has also dismissed O.P. NO.18250/1995.

            Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant in C.A.No.6613/2001 requested for permission to challenge the order of the High Court on merits also.  However, as his client had applied for withdrawal of the Petition, we have not permitted him to argue on merits.  In  our view the High Court was absolutely wrong in not permitting withdrawal.  The order passed by the State Government on 26th February, 1999 made the Petitions redundant.  If any party was aggrieved by that order it was for that party to adopt separate proceedings challenging that order.  The High Court could not have proceeded to quash that order in these proceedings. 

            We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow Petition No.18378 of 1995 to be withdrawn.  We clarify that all observations made by the High Court will not be taken into consideration in any other matter and will not have even a persuasive value  in any other case.

            We are informed that Respondent No.3 had filed a Writ Petition challenging the order dated 26th February, 1999 but that Writ Petition was withdrawn in view of the impugned order.  We permit Respondent No.3 to file another Writ Petition challenging that order, if so advised.

            These Appeals stand disposed of  accordingly.

            There will be no Order as to costs. 

                                                S.N. VARIAVA & H.K. SEMA(JJ) 

New Delhi

March 18,   2004.