9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of reinstatement of the respondent.
Summary: The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices Pasayat, Arijit, and Sharma, granted leave to appeal against the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The High Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellants, stating that the respondent had been reinstated in service as per the judgment of a single Judge, rendering the appeal infructuous. The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court's order had no legal basis, emphasizing that the implementation of the order did not deprive the appellants of their right to appeal and challenge its correctness. The Court observed that the mere implementation of an order, even without interim relief in favor of the applicant, does not preclude the appeal from being heard on its merits. Citing precedents such as Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. and Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated the importance of entertaining appeals regardless of the implementation of orders. Referring to the case of Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar & Ors., the Court highlighted that compliance with High Court directions by the State Government does not render an appeal infructuous, as seen in the context of pending appeals. Based on the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, directing that the writ appeal be heard on merits without expressing any opinion on the matter. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no costs imposed on either party.
|
