- (1.) The title and description of the present petition is interesting one. It is Union of India v. Union of India. We do not know who is fighting and against, whom. It is sad that the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India and opposed by another counsel representing Union of India is not aware of the Supreme Court's judgments namely Oil & Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. CCE (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 643 : 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 (paras 3 and 4) followed subsequently in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of AP v. Collector and Ors. AIR2003 SC 1805 , 2003 (4 )ALD27 (SC ), [2003 (2 )JCR175 (SC )], JT2003 (5 )SC 210 , (2003 )2 MLJ57 (SC ), 2003 (2 )SCALE429 , (2003 )3 SCC472 . For convenience paras 3 and 4 of Oil & Natural Gas Commission and Anr. (supra) are reproduced below :
(2.) We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline.
(3.) It shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. We also quote the relevant paras 13 and 14 of aforementioned case of Chief Conservator of Forests (supra) which reads as under : 14. The facts of this appeal, noticed above, make out a strong case that there is a felt need of setting up of similar Committees by the State Governments also to resolve the controversy arising between various Departments of the State or the State and any of its undertakings. It would be appropriate for the State Governments to set up a Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, the Secretaries of the concerned Departments, the Secretary of Law and where financial commitments are involved, the Secretary of Finance. The decision taken by such a Committee shall be binding on all the Departments concerned and shall be the stand of the Government. 15. Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the view that after the said statutory order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record, the matter should have rested there. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was not only inappropriate but, also illegal for the Chief Conservator of Forests, though he might have done so in all good faith, to have questioned the order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petn. (C) No. 3414 of 1982. The Chief Conservator of Forests as the petitioner can neither be treated as the State of Andhra Pradesh nor can it be a case of misdescription of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The fact is that the State of Andhra Pradesh was not the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable in law. The High Court, had it deemed fit so to do, would have added the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party; however, it proceeded, in our view erroneously, as if the State of Andhra Pradesh was the petitioner which, as a matter of fact, was not the case and could not have been treated as such. As the writ petition itself was not maintainable, it follows as a corollary that the appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forests is also not maintainable. We are unable to accept the contention of Ms. Amreswari that merely because the concerned officer had obtained the permission of the Government to file an appeal, which is not placed before us, the writ petition and the appeal should be treated as an appeal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The permission granted to the concerned authority might be a permission to file an appeal which cannot reasonably be construed as authorization to file the appeal in his own name, contrary to law. It could only be a permission to file the appeal in the name of the State of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the CPC. We may also record that in spite of the Pattedars taking objection to that effect at the earliest, no steps were taken to substitute or implead the State of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petition in the High Court or in the appeal in this Court.;