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
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
