ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKA versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 1101 · Decided: 08-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-
} 
ARUN 5/0 MAHADEORAO DAMKA 
v. 
ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OF POLICE & ANR. 
MAY 8, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
1101 
Constitution of 
India, 
-t Necessity of High Courts to 
dismissing petitions • 
1950, 
make 
Arts. 
226 and 
227 -
speaking orders while 
The petitioner, who had a brilliant record in service, 
t. was reverted on Jan. 4, 1985 from the post of Police Inspector 
to that of Police Sub-Inspector with the endorsement that such 
reversion would not disqualify him for being considered for 
+ promotion to the post of Police Inspector in future. He made a 
... 
detailed representation contending that his reversion was 
wholly unjustified. Since he did not receive any redress of 
his grievance, he moved the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High 
Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution 
challenging the order of reversion as being violative of Art. 
311(2) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the 
petition in limine • 
In appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended: (i) 
that the reversion of 
the appellant from 
the post of 
Officiating Police-Inspector to that of Police Sub-Inspector 
was by way of punishment and was thus violative of Art. 311(2) 
-"f of the Constitution; and (ii) that the High Court was 
not 
justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. 
'\ 
Allowing the appeal, 
HEU>: 
1. The impugned order passed by the High Court 
dismissing the writ petition in limine by the use of a laconic 
word "rejected" cannot be sustained. It does not inspire 
public confidence in administration of justice if the High 
, 
Courts 
were 
to reject the writ petitions without 
due 
.J. application of mind even though substantial questions were 
r 
raised in the writ petitions. It was not right on the part of 
"' 
the High Court to have declined to entertain and decide the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 2 s.c.R. 
question as to whether the impugned order of reversion was 
liable to be struck down as offending against Art.311(2) of ~ 
the Constitution. The writ petition did raise an arguable 
question and it deserved hearing upon merits. (1104 G-H; 
1105 A-Bl 
2.1 In a hierarchical system of Courts which exists in 
our country, all courts and tribunals including the High Court 
exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions owe it a duty 
to pass reasoned orders. Therefore, while dismissing a writ i 
petition summarily, 
the High Court must 
record reasons 
briefly. A brief statement of reasons would greatly assist the 
Supreme Court in understanding the High Court's thought 
process which, in turn facilitates a quick and satisfactory -" 
disposal of Special Leave Petitions. (1105 B-C; E-Gl 
) 
2. 2 The High Courts should understand this Court's i 
difficulty in unravelling the reasons for summary dismissal in 
the absence of a brief statement of reasons. It would 
considerably lighten the task of Supreme Court if the High 
Courts while dismissing a writ petition were to indicate in a 
few words the contention(s) urged and their views that the 
contentions cannot prevail. (1105 G; Dl 
E 
In the instant case, the Court directed the High Court Y 
F 
G 
to admit the writ petition to its file and dispose it of in 
accordance with law. (1106 A-Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 1963 of 
1~6. 
~ 
•From the Judgment and Order dated 19th September, 1985 
of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1985. 
r 
U.R. Lallt, S.V. Deshpande, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S. Ray 
for the Appellant. 
V.N. Ganpule, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
SEN, J. This is a petition for grant of special leave 
under Art. 
136 of the Constitution directed against the 
• 
-
ARUN v. A.I.G. OF POLICE 
[SEN, J.] 
1103 
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated September 
} 
19, 1985 dismising a petition filed by the petitioner under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the 
1 
Additional Inspector General of Police, Bombay dated January 
4, 1985 for his reversfon from the post of Offg. Police 
A 
Inspector 
to that 
of 
Sub-Inspector of 
Police as 
being 
B 
• 
j .., 
-
violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. By the impugned 
order, the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition in 
limine just by the use of a laconic word 'rejected'. 
The Facts. The petitioner was promoted as Offg. Police 
Inspector on May 22, 
1983, on the recommendation of the 
Sele

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.