9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition as infructuous. - Interpretation of the term "infructuous" in the context of implementing a tribunal's order. - Whether a writ petition questioning a tribunal's order on merits becomes infructuous after implementation of the order. Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed a writ petition as infructuous. The respondent-employee was dismissed by the disciplinary authority for accepting illegal gratification, but the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal order and directed reinstatement. The appellants challenged this decision through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, stating that the respondent had already been reinstated. The appellant contended that the High Court's view was untenable, emphasizing that implementing the reinstatement order did not render the petition infructuous. The key issue addressed in the judgment is the interpretation of the term "infructuous" in the context of implementing a tribunal's order. The respondent's counsel argued that the Tribunal's order was flawless, and there was no merit in challenging it. Additionally, it was asserted that the writ petition had indeed become infructuous post-reinstatement, as correctly held by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing a previous case where compliance with a court's directions did not render an appeal infructuous. The Court clarified that implementing an order does not eliminate the challenge to its validity, and thus, the writ petition should not be considered infructuous solely based on implementation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal on merits. It was explicitly stated that the Court did not express any opinion on the case's merits. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs. This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between the implementation of an order and the validity of the challenge against it, emphasizing that the term "infructuous" does not automatically apply when an order is carried out.
|
