CYRIL LASRADO (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus JULIANA MARIA LASRADO AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 12-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CYRIL LASRADO (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
JULIANA MARIA LASRADO AND ANR. 
AUGUST 12, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Non-application of mind-Writ peti-
C tion was filed against a dead person after a long lapse of about 19 years-
Delay unexplained-Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without 
issuing notice to the Legal Rl!presentatives (LRs) of the deceased-Single 
Judge was of the view that since the matter was being remitted to the 
Tribunal, no prejudice would be caused to the LRs if they were not brought 
D on record-Division Bench dismissed the appeal without indicating any 
reasons-Correctness of-Held: The order of the Single Judge and the 
Division Bench clearly show non-application of mind-Absence of reasons 
has rendered the High Court's judgment unsustainable-Hence, matter 
remitted back to Single Judge for a decision afresh on merits. 
E 
Article 226-Writ petition-Delay/laches-Maintainability of-Writ 
F 
petition filed after a long lapse of about 19 years against a dead person--
Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without considering the long 
delay and without bringing the LRs on record-Correctness of-Held: It 
prima facie made the Single Judge's order vulnerable. 
Administrative Law: 
Natural justice-Reasons-Giving of-Importance of-Held: Rea-
sons introduce clarity in an order and substitute subjectivity by objectivity-
G Giving reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice. 
The predecessor-in-interest (applicant) of the appellants filed an 
application before the Land Tribunal for recording his name as the 
occ11pant of the concerned land, which was allowed. A writ petition was 
filed by the respondents after a long lapse of about 19 years questioning 
H the correctness of the Tribunal's order. The same was filed against the 
512 
CYRIL LASRADO v. J.M. LASRADO 
513 
~ 
said applicant who had died in the meantime. This fact was brought A 
to the notice of the Single Judge. But the Single Judge was of the view 
that since the matter was being remitted to the Tribunal no prejudice 
would be caused if the legal representatives of the deceased were not 
brought on record. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the 
Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 
B 
' 
The appellants contended before the Division Bench that the writ 
petition was filed against a dead person after a long lapse of about 19 
years and it was disposed of without issuance of notice to the legal 
representative of the deceased. But the .Division Bench did not even 
advert to the question as to how substantial justice had been done and c 
dismissed the appeal without indicating any reason. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Overlooking the fact that the writ petition was filed D 
after about 19 years of the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal, the 
Single Judge disposed of the matter even without issuance of notice to 
the legal representatives. That prima facie made the Single Judge's 
order vulnerable. The Division Bench without indicating any reason as 
to how the conclusions of the Single Judge were in order dismissed the 
E 
Writ Appeal. (516-G-H; 517-A) 
2. The order of the Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the 
Division Bench show clearly non-application of mind. The latter is 
practically non-reasoned. The basic issue raised by the appellants was 
the unexplained delay in filing the writ application. The Single Judge did F 
not consider that aspect before the disposal of the writ petition without 
issuance of the notice to the appellants. Though specifically urged and 
"" 
argued, the Division Bench has not dealt with it and has not recorded any 
conclusion on that issue and no reason has been indicated. (517-C-D) 
3.1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest considera- G 
tion of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, 
howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, 
all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. 
The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not 
sustainable. (517-D-E) 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
3.2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis 
on recording reasons is that ifthe decision reveals the "inscrutable face 
of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for 
the Courts to perform their appellate func

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