Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 32 and 226-Natural justice-Denial of Court's discretion- Nature and scope of H was allotted site for petrol pump-Later Supreme Court, in a PIL case relating to maintenance of environment, ordered Petrol Pump B to Shift from Ridge area Government allotting B at same site which was allotted to H without notice to H-Subsequently, Supreme Court recalled its earlier order and allowed B to continue in the old location-Original allotment of H, therefore, restored-No notice given to B-Held: If on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principles of natural justice-Therefore, on the admitted and indisputable facts, namely, the recall of the earlier order of Supreme Court, it is mandatory for the Supreme Court to restore the status quo ante prevailing on the date of its first order-Restitution is a must in these circumstances- Hence, grant of writ in favour of B would be in vain-Articles 32 and 226- Court's discretion-Nature and scope of Order-Breaching natural justice- Striking down of Held: Not always necessary Court can refuse to strike down an order if such striking down would result in restoration of another F order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party-Administrative Law.

Natural justice Statutory provisions-Notice-Waiver of Held: Notice may be waived if a statutory provision is intended for individual benefit but not if it is intended to protect interest. Natural justice-"Useless formality" theory-No opinion expressed on its correctness or otherwise.

The respondent allotted a site for a petrol pump at San Martin Marg to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). However, the same site was allotted to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), which was ordered by this Court, in a public interest litigation relating to maintenance of environment, to shift to a new location. But no notice was given to HPCL.

This Court later on recalled its earlier order regarding change of location and allowed BPCL to continue in the old location. Thereafter, the original allotment was restored to HPCL without giving a notice to BPCL.  BPCL filed the present application in this Court for quashing of the order of re-allotment to HPCL as it had been passed in breach of principles of natural justice.