LexHILL VIEW COLONY & ORS. versus STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2017) 5 S.C.R. 508 HILL VIEW COLONY & ORS. v. STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6022 of 2012) B APRIL 21, 2017 (R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Supreme Court - Directions - Respondent no.2 filed writ . petition seeking cancellation of census record collected by the C Municipal council of a Industrial village and sought directions for other respondents not to accept the same - Single judge of High Court directed Municipal council to cancel records collected by them - Appellants no.1- 4, who were not party to the writ petition, filed appeal before Division Bench, which was dismissed ~ On appeal, held: Case remanded back to the writ Court (Single Judge) D due to various reasons - Firstly, writ court decided the writ petition without taking into consideration the stands of the appellants, as they were not parties to the original writ petition - Secondly, Appellate Court instead of deciding the issues, should have remanded the case. to writ Court for deciding the writ petition 'afresh E after granting opportunity to appellants to file their counter affidavits - Thirdly. having regard to the nature of controversy and various issues raised by all parties concerned and subsequent events, ii would be in the interest of all parties concerned that writ court (Single Judge) should decide the writ petition afresh - Census Act - Constitutio_n of India - Art.226. F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court · HELD: 1. In ~ubstance, the issue involved in the writ petition and carried to this Court in the appeal arises out of Census Act as also certain State laws applicable to the State ofNagaland. The challenge inter alia therein is to orders issued by the State G Authorities in relation to census. (Para 10] (511-E-F] 2. The need to remand the case to the writ Court has occasioned due to the following reasons as detailed herein: 2.1 First, since the appellants herein were not parties to H the original writ petition but became parties in appeal for the 508 HILL VIEW COLONY & ORS. v. STATE OF NAGALAND & 509 ORS. first time, the writ .Court decided the writ petition without taking A into consideration the stand of the appellants. [Paras 11, 12] [511- F-G] 2.2 Second, once the Appellate Court granted leave to the appellants to file appeal thereby recognizing their locus in the subject matter of the writ petition then, instead of deciding the issues in its appellate jurisdiction, the Appellate Court should have remanded the case to the writ Court for deciding the writ petition afresh after granting an opportunity to the appellants to file their counter affidavits in answer to the writ petition. It was, however, not done. [Para 13] [511-H; 512-A] 2.3 Third, having regard to the nature of the controversy and. various issues raised therein by all the parties concerned and also keeping in view the subsequent events which have come info existence during the pendency of this appeal, it would be in B c the interest of all the parties concerned that the writ Court (Single Judge) should decide the writ petition afresh. [Para 14] [512-B-C] D 2.4 Liberty granted to the appellants to file their counter affidavits in response to the writ petition as respondent Nos.5 to 9 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner and other original respondent Nos.1-4 (State and its agencies) are also granted liberty to amend their pleadings and raise all objections both on facts and law by filing additional counter affidavit/rejoinders etc. It is now for the writ Court to decide all issues. [Paras 15, 16] (512-C-D, E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6022 of2012. ·From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2011 in Writ Appeal (C) No. 23(K) of2010 and Order dated 01.09.2010 in W. P. (C) NO. l l 7(K) of2010 of the High Court ofGauhati, Kohima Bench. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sumita Hazarika, P. Plus Lotha, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Vikramjit Banerjee, Sr. Advs., Joseph Aristotle, C. M. Kennedy, Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ms. K. Priyadarshin·i, Ashish Yadav, Romsha Raj, Amit Sharma, Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Z. H. Issac Hainding, Amit Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. E F G H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANO HAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the High Court ofGauhati, Kohima Bench in Writ Appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.