A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
SMT. BIRWATI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2018)
AUGUST 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Interlocutory Order: Appellant filed a Writ petition before the
High Court and prayed for grant of interim stay during pendency
of Writ petition in relation to the subject mater of the land in
question – High Court rejected the application for stay observing
that since the required land is lying vacant, there is no reason to
grant any stay – On appeal, held: High Court did not give adequate
reason for not granting stay and the reason given was not in itself
justified reason – Matter remitted to High Court to decide the ad
interim prayer afresh.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: The Court is required to support justifiable
reason(s) to either grant or reject keeping in view the facts and
the law applicable to the controversy involved. It was not so
found in the impugned order and, therefore, the order of remand
is called for to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
[Para 9] [935-G-H; 936-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8376 of
2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No. 10834 of 2017 in Civil
Writ Petition No. 10546 of 2016 .
Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Manoj Swarup, Ankit
Swarup, Ms. Mansi Jain, Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Mukul Kumar, Rakesh
K. Mudgal, Dinesh Mudgal, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
934
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 934
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2.
This appeal arises from the interim order dated 10.08.2017
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.M.
No.10834 of 2017 in Civil Writ Petition No.10546 of 2016 whereby the
High Court rejected the application for stay filed by the appellants herein.
3.
Few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra for the disposal
of the appeal, which involves a short question.
4.
In a pending writ petition (C.W.P. No.10546/2016) filed by
the appellants herein against the State in the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana, the writ petitioners (appellants herein) prayed for grant of ad-
interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition in relation to the
subject matter of the land in question.
5.
By impugned order, the High Court declined to grant the ad-
interim stay observing:
“As the required land is lying vacant, we do not find
any reason to grant any stay.”
6.
It is against the aforementioned order, the writ petitioners have
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
7.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside
the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court to decide the
ad-interim prayer made by the appellants (writ petitioners) afresh or/
and consider disposing of the writ petition itself, as the case may be, in
accordance with law.
8.
The reason to remand the case has occasioned due to the
fact that firstly, no adequate reason is given in the impugned order for
not granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justify
the rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the
writ petition.
9.
In short, justifiable reason(s) to support either the grant or
rejection need(s) to be stated keeping in view the facts and the law
applicable to the controversy involved. It is not so found in the impugned
SMT. BIRWATI CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. THE STATE OF
HARYANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
order and hence the order of remand is called for to decide the matter
afresh in accordance with law.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the case is
remanded to the High Court to decide the issue afresh on merits strictly
in accordance with law without being influenced by any of our
observations made above, which we have refrained to make having
formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons
mentioned above.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
Lex