State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Pushpa Bai (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) NO.350/2000) D. B. Civil & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
writ petition is dismissed in limine the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. As a result of the above discussion, we have no option but to remit the case back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and to decide the writ petition on merit by a reasoned order. Accordingly, the instant special appeal
- Para 88. stands allowed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated July 29, 1999 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on August 04, 2008 for seeking further instruction. (Mahesh Bhagwati),J.(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn/
Judgment
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Pushpa Bai & Another (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) NO.350/2000) D. B. Civil Special Appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance,1949 against the judgment dated 29-7-1999 of learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2693/1999. Date of Judgment: June 30, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents. BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE Shiv Kumar Sharma,J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of learned Single Judge dated July 29, 1999 whereby the writ petition of appellant was dismissed. The order reads as under:-
Heard. The impugned award is not so erroenous as to require interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Finding of facts are delivered may be on wrong appreciation of evidence but that is no ground for interference. Hence the writ petition is rejected.
Operative part
In our opinion, this order cannot be termed as speaking order. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in M.P. Mittal Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1984 SC 1888) issued directions which are beneficial to the general administration of justice, thus:- (Para 6) “Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to point out that it would be beneficial to the general administration of justice if in certain cases where the High Court disposes of a writ petition in limine it does so by an order incorporating the reasons for such order. Where a case is admitted to final hearing, the judgment of The High Court disposing of The appeal almost invariably sets forth the reasons for its decision. We think it desirable that even when a writ petition is dismissed in limine the High Court should set out its reasons, however briefly, for doing so, especially in those cases where the matter in controversy is the subject of judicial examination for the first time and has not been processed earlier by an inferior judicial or quasi-judicial authority. It is of some importance that a party should know from the court of first instance the reasons for an adverse decision received by it, for that promotes acceptance of the judgment and thereby ensures credibility and public confidence in the judicial institution. It must be remembered that the High Court exercises original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and it is only appropriate that a petitioner whose writ petition is dismissed in limine should know what are the precise reasons for the adverse order, whether the writ petition has been rejected on the ground of laches or other preliminary ground or on the merits of the controversy, and what are the reasons of the High Court thereof. We may add that a brief statement of reasons rendered by the High Court when dismissing the writ petition in limine, is of great assistance also this court when the judgment and order of the High Court are sought to be brought here by a petition for special leave to appeal. To sum up, we think it desirable that the High Court, when dismissing a writ petition in limine, should set forth a brief statement of the reasons for its order instead of disposing of the proceeding by the single word “dismissed.”
461, the Apex Court observed as under:- In Fauja Singh Vs. Jaspal Kaur (1996)4 SCC
3. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes, or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. The order of the High Court dismissing the civil revision petition, in limine, thus, cannot be sustained.
(1998)2 SCC 242, it was held as under:- In Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Para 7) “At the outset, we may say that the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi ought to have given reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. As stated in Fauja Singh V. Jaspal Kaur on the plainest consideration of justice, the High Court should have given reasons. The absence of reasons has deprived the Supreme Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in limine. It was an unsatisfactory method of disposal. (Emphasis supplied) Testing the impugned order in the light of
law laid down by the Apex Court, we find that it cannot be sustained, since it has not been supported by any reason.
As a result of the above discussion, we have no option but to remit the case back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and to decide the writ petition on merit by a reasoned order. Accordingly, the instant special appeal
stands allowed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated July 29, 1999 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on August 04, 2008 for seeking further instruction. (Mahesh Bhagwati),J.(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is dismissed in limine the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.