2007 (5) TMI 609 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court came to correct conclusion that even if it is found that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded to the prescribed authority?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Remand of the matter to the Prescribed Authority by the High Court.
2. Relevance of subsequent events during the pendency of proceedings.
3. High Court's approach in dismissing the writ petition and granting liberty to file a fresh release application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Remand of the Matter to the Prescribed Authority by the High Court:
The appellant challenged the judgment of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, which concluded that even if the decisions of the lower courts were erroneous in law, the matter needed to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority. The appellant had filed a release petition under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The High Court's decision to remand the matter was based on the prolonged passage of time since the original release application was filed, suggesting that bona fide need and comparative hardship may have changed.

2. Relevance of Subsequent Events During the Pendency of Proceedings:
The Supreme Court examined the relevance of subsequent events during the pendency of proceedings, citing several precedents. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, it was established that the court must take cognizance of events that occur after the commencement of proceedings if they have a fundamental impact on the right to relief. The court can bend procedural rules to promote substantial justice, provided no specific provision or fairplay is violated. This principle was reaffirmed in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, where the court emphasized that subsequent events should be considered to shorten litigation and enable complete justice.

3. High Court's Approach in Dismissing the Writ Petition and Granting Liberty to File a Fresh Release Application:
The appellant contended that the High Court's approach was erroneous, as it dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to file a fresh release application instead of deciding the matter. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order would unnecessarily prolong litigation. The court highlighted that the High Court should have considered the subsequent events and the prolonged pendency of the case to provide a just resolution. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to dispose of the matter within four months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, keeping in view the principles related to the relevance of subsequent events and the need to provide a just resolution without unnecessary prolongation of litigation. The court requested the High Court to dispose of the matter within four months, considering the long pendency of the case.