Suresh Srivastava & Ors. v. Sundeep Bhutoria
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Having heard Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel
for the sole respondent, we are not inclined to consider interference in
the core of the questioned part of impugned order dated 17.02.2022
(from paragraph 11 onwards), insofar as the High Court has considered
it proper to direct registration of a Public Interest L itigation (‘PIL’)
concerning the association in question, i.e., Indian Federation of United
Nations Association, particularly having regard to th e prima facie
observations of the High Court, indicating the reasons for registering
such a PIL after disposal of the main matter involved in LPA No. 126 of
2022.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has attempte d to
make several submissions as regards the stand of appellant s and that
the dispute between them and the respondent is pending in Civil Suit No.
554 of 2019 in the Court of Additional District Judge-3, South District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi. However, we are of the view that all such
submissions and all the relevant facts and factors whi ch, in the prima
facie opinion of the High Court require clarification, ought to be projected
before the High Court. Thus, we leave it open for the appellants to make
all the appropriate submissions before the High Court as re gards their
response to the observations in the order impugned a s also their
propositions/objections.
4. Even when we are not inclined to interfere with the ma tter at
this stage, while leaving it open for the appellants to make all the relevant
submissions before the High Court, we are of the view that when the
High Court has registered the matter as a PIL, it ought to be dealt with
as a non-adversarial litigation.
5. In this context, noticeable it is that the respondent of the present
appeal, who is said to have brought certain facts to the noti ce of the
High Court, is, otherwise, standing in the capacity of a disputant qua the
present appellants. That being the position, the observations made in
paragraph 17 of the order impugned, where the High Court has permitted
the respondent to assist the Court and thereby has practically assigned
877
him the role of an amicus, do not appear compatible with the requirements
of a PIL.
6. Therefore, we are inclined to annul the said paragrap h 17 of
the impugned order. In other words, we leave the matter open to be
dealt with as a PIL; and all the relevant aspects of the m atter are left
open for the examination by the High Court with the assistance of amicus
curiae, who has also been appointed in terms of paragraph 18 of the
order impugned.
7. Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal stands disposed
of at this stage itself.
8. It goes without saying that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case either way.
Devika Gujral Appeal disposed of.
SURESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. SUNDEEP BHUTORIA