Supreme Court Restores Right to Legal Remedies in NTPC Representation Case

The Supreme Court of India, in Anubhav Kumar Choudhary & Others vs. Union of India & Others, ruled on a significant issue concerning the right of a citizen to seek legal remedies after making a representation to a government authority. The case involved an order from the Patna High Court that granted the appellant the right to file a representation before the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) but restricted them from approaching the court again for the same issue. The Supreme Court found this restriction unjustified and restored the appellant’s right to legal remedies.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Anubhav Kumar Choudhary, had filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court (CWJC No. 5402 of 2015) regarding a grievance against NTPC. The High Court allowed the appellant to file a representation before NTPC but included a condition that they would not be allowed to approach the court again regarding the same issue.

Aggrieved by this restriction, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 6342/2016) before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s (Anubhav Kumar Choudhary & Others) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that while the High Court had rightly permitted them to file a representation before NTPC, it was unfair to bar them from seeking legal remedies in case their representation was rejected or no action was taken.
• They contended that every citizen has a fundamental right to seek legal remedies, and such a restriction was unjust and arbitrary.
• The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to remove the condition imposed by the High Court and allow them the right to challenge any adverse decision by NTPC.

Respondent’s (Union of India & Others) Arguments:

• The respondents did not object to the appellant making a representation before NTPC.
• However, they defended the High Court’s ruling, arguing that allowing repeated legal challenges could lead to unnecessary litigation.
• The respondents maintained that the appellant should first exhaust the remedy of filing a representation before seeking judicial intervention.

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

• The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant’s contention that the restriction imposed by the High Court was unjustified.
• The Court stated, “A right to prosecute the legal remedy in the court of law to challenge any decision of the State or/and its agency is a valuable legal right of the citizen and the High Court could not take away such right from the appellant without assigning any reason.”
• The Court held that the High Court should have allowed the appellant to take legal recourse if their representation was rejected or remained unanswered.
• The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and set aside the portion of the High Court’s order that prevented the appellant from approaching the court again.
• The Court granted the appellant the liberty to take legal action in case NTPC’s decision was unfavorable.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces the fundamental right of individuals to seek legal remedies against decisions of public authorities.
• Courts should not impose unnecessary restrictions on a citizen’s ability to challenge administrative decisions.
• The ruling ensures that government bodies remain accountable and responsive to grievances raised by citizens.

The judgment was delivered by Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre on February 29, 2016.

This ruling safeguards the legal rights of individuals and ensures that no undue restrictions are placed on access to judicial remedies.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Anubhav Kumar Choudh vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-02-2016-1741852884916.pdf