9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Application of rules of practice in determining the period of limitation for filing petitions for writs of certiorari. 3. Consideration of special circumstances justifying departure from rules of practice in filing petitions for writs of certiorari. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the timeliness of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The appellants had moved the High Court for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was dismissed by Mathur, J., due to the petition being filed beyond the prescribed period. The High Court affirmed this decision, citing a practice that petitions should be filed quickly after the delivery of judgment by the inferior tribunal. The Supreme Court emphasized that while delay should be avoided, the aggrieved party should have a reasonable time to move the High Court for certiorari. 2. The judgment delves into the application of rules of practice in determining the period of limitation for filing petitions for writs of certiorari. The High Court of Allahabad had not framed any specific rule prescribing the limitation period for such petitions. The Court highlighted that a rule of practice cannot prescribe a binding rule of limitation but only guide the exercise of discretion by the Court in assessing laches or undue delay. The Court noted that the primary question in each case is whether the applicant has been guilty of laches or undue delay, rather than strict adherence to a prescribed period. 3. The judgment also discusses the consideration of special circumstances justifying departure from rules of practice in filing petitions for writs of certiorari. The appellants in this case faced special circumstances, such as the unexpected closure of the High Court offices for Diwali holidays on the day the petition was intended to be filed. The Court noted that the appellants had completed all preliminary steps for filing the petition before the closure. Despite the High Court's adherence to a practice of filing petitions quickly, the Supreme Court emphasized that the circumstances in this case warranted a departure from strict compliance with the practice. The Court concluded that the High Court had exalted a rule of practice into a rule of limitation and remanded the proceedings for hearing and disposal according to law, allowing the appeal due to the special circumstances justifying the delay in filing the petition.
|
