2017 (4) TMI 1648 - SC - Indian Laws

Remand of the case to the writ Court has occasioned due to the reason that both, the writ Court and the Appellate Court did not set out even the factual controversy nor dealt with the submissions urged by the appellant - HELD THAT - The need to remand the case to the writ Court has occasioned due to the reason that both, i.e., the writ Court and the Appellate Court did not set out even the factual controversy nor dealt with the submissions urged by the appellant and nor examined the issues in the context of relevant provisions of the Act which governed the controversy. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved in the lis, the least which is expected of is that the order which decides the lis between the parties should contain the brief facts involved in the case, the grounds on which the action is impugned, the stand of the parties defending the action, the submissions of the parties in support of their stand, legal provisions, if any, applicable to the controversy involved in the lis, and lastly, the brief reasons as to why the case of one party deserves acceptance or rejection, as the case may be. The writ Court should have issued notice of the writ petition to the respondents and then decided the writ petition on merits by reasoned order rather than to dismiss it in limine - The impugned order and the order of the writ Court are set aside - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against final judgment of High Court; Challenge to order of Collector; Dismissal of writ petition by Single Judge; Dismissal of writ appeal by Division Bench; Appeal before Supreme Court for special leave.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The appellant, a Municipal Board, had filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Collector. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily, stating that the order passed by the Collector was in compliance with an earlier order and did not find any ground to interfere. The appellant then filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed summarily. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had rightly exercised discretion in not interfering with the Collector's order. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.

Upon hearing both parties and perusing the case record, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The Court set aside the impugned order of the writ Court and restored the appellant's writ petition for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. The Court noted that both the writ Court and the Appellate Court had failed to address the factual controversy, submissions of the parties, and relevant legal provisions governing the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the order deciding the case should include brief facts, grounds for action, parties' stands, legal provisions, and reasons for acceptance or rejection of a party's case.

The Supreme Court found it necessary to remand the case to the writ Court due to the failure of the lower courts to address the issues properly. The Court highlighted that the writ Court should have issued notice to the respondents and decided the petition on merits rather than dismissing it summarily. Similarly, the Appellate Court had not considered the submissions raised by the appellant, warranting a remand to the writ Court for a proper decision on the petition. The Supreme Court refrained from recording any finding on the merits of the case, directing the writ Court to decide the matter expeditiously without influence from the Supreme Court's observations.