advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, May 18, 2017

In our considered view, 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.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CIVIL APPEAL No.460 OF 2008


Municipal Board, Sumerpur      ….Appellant(s)

                                   VERSUS

Kundanmal & Ors.              …Respondent(s)



                               J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1)    This appeal is filed  against  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated
09.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur
in D.B. Civil  Special  Appeal  No.  92  of  2006  whereby  the  High  Court
dismissed the special appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed  the
judgment/order dated 02.08.2005 of the Single Judge  in  S.B.C.W.P.  No.1403
of 2004.





2)    Facts of the case need not  be  mentioned  in  detail  except  to  the
extent necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
3)    The appellant - a Municipal Board, Sumerpur (writ petitioner) filed  a
writ petition being Civil Writ No. 1403 of  2004   against  the  respondents
challenging therein the order dated  30.09.2003  passed  by  the  Collector,
Pali in Municipal Appeal No.03/2001. The Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court
dismissed the writ petition in limine by order dated 02.08.2005 which  reads
as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The order impugned, Annex.8 has been  passed  in  compliance  of  the  order
passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 15.1.2001 passed  inter-parties
being Annex.7.  It is not shown, as to how the  order,  Annex.8  is  not  in
accordance with the directions contained in Annex.7.  In that  view  of  the
matter, I do not find any  ground  to  interfere.   The  writ  petition  is,
therefore, dismissed summarily.”



4)    The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed writ appeal before  the  Division
Bench. By impugned  order,  the  Division  Bench  dismissed  the  appeal  in
limine. The impugned order reads as under:
“Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are of the  opinion  that
no interference is called for in this appeal  in  the  judgment  of  learned
Single Judge who has rightly exercised his  discretion  in  not  interfering
with the order passed by the Collector as the learned counsel has  not  been
able to show how the impugned order is contrary  to  direction  of  Division
Bench.

      In essence learned counsel for the appellant tried to  urge  that  the
decision rendered in Hotechad’s case in the  light  of  which  the  Division
Bench in his earlier decision has directed  to  decide  his  representation,
was erroneous.  That is not permissible.”

5)    Felt aggrieved, the appellant (writ petitioner) has  filed  appeal  by
way of special leave before this Court.
6)    Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.
Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

7)    Having heard the learned counsel for the parties  and  on  perusal  of
the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal in  part  and
while setting aside the impugned order also of the writ Court,  restore  the
appellant's writ petition  to  its  file  for  its  decision  on  merits  in
accordance with law.
8)    In our considered opinion, 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.
9)    In our considered view, 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.
10)    This enables the superior  Court  to  examine  the  legality  of  the
decision in its proper perspective in its appellate jurisdiction.
11)   Having regard to the nature of controversy involved  in  the  case  in
hand, in our view, 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.
12)   The Appellate Court too while dismissing the appeal in limine did  not
deal with any of the submissions raised by the appellant  and  nor  assigned
any reason much less in detail thereby  depriving  the  Appellate  Court  to
examine the issues arising in the case in its proper perspective.
13)   It is for these reasons, we cannot concur with the conclusion  arrived
at by the two Courts below and consider it proper in the facts of this  case
to remand it to the writ Court for deciding the writ petition on  merits  in
accordance with law.
14)   Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case, we have  refrained
from recording any finding on merits on any of the  issues  arising  in  the
case.
15)    In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal  succeeds  and   is
accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order and the order  of  the  writ
Court are set aside. The writ petition out of which this  appeal  arises  is
restored to its file. The writ Court (Single Judge) is requested  to  decide
the writ petition on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced  by  any  of
our observations.
16)   Since the matter is quite old, we request the Single Judge  to  decide
the writ petition expeditiously.



                                       …….................................J.
                                     [R.K. AGRAWAL]

        …......................................J.
                                      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
      New Delhi;
April 21, 2017
-----------------------
7



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.