STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER versus SHAMLAL MURARI & ANR,

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 06-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

iB 
• 
E 
:F 
H 
82 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SHAMLAL MURARI & ANR, 
October 6, 1975 
[V. R. KRISHNA lYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Letters Pate11t Appeals under c/au~e 10-The Punjab and Haryana High 
Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5 Chapter 2-C-Ru/e 3-Core or esse11ce of the 
Rule-Rule is 11ot ma11datory for the purposes of e11tertaini11g t/1e Leffers Patent 
Appeal-Breach of the Rule is only an irregularitY-lnterference, by the Court 
of Appeal with the discretionary exercise of power should be exceptional and 
011ly when there is somet/1i11g perverse or irrational in the exercise of that power. 
Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C, Vol. 5 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
Rules and Orders reads as follows : 
"R. 3 : No appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be received 
by the Deputy Registrnr unless it is accompanied by three typed copies 
of the following : 
(a) Memorandum of appeal; 
(b) Judgment appealed from, and 
( c) Paper book which was before the Judge from whose judgment the 
appeal is preferred." 
While construing the said ru.le, the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana 
• 
• 
High Court in JJikram Das v. The Fi11a11cial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, 
~ 
. C/wndigarh and others, A.LR. 197 5 Punjab and Haryana 1, held that Rule 3 
relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory. 
The appellant-State while preferring the Letters Pa!ent Appeal against the 
orders of the single Judge holding in favour of the respondent that the denial 
of increments and certain o!her benefits for failure to pass departmental test 
for which exemption has been granted to him as bad, filed copies of all the 
three documents referred to in Rule 3 relating to Letters Patent Appeal, but 
not three copies of each an_d with an application for condonation of delay. 
The Court refused to entertain the appeal (i) following Bikram Dass case for 
non-compliance of Rule 3, and (ii) declining to exerdse its discretion as regards 
!he extension of the period of limita,tion and condonation of delay. 
On appeal, by Special Leave, the State contended : 
(i) that the ratio in Bikram Das's case of the Full Bench of Punjab and 
Haryana High Court holding that Rule 3 relating to entertaining of Letters 
Patent Appeals as mandatory was wrong. 
(ii) Reluctance to exercise the discretionary power to condone the delay 
and extend the period of limitation was not proper, and 
(iii) Denial of the increments and other benefits to a Government servant 
for failure to pass the departmental test in spite of exemption having 
been 
granted to him, was not bad in law. 
Dismhsing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: (1) The contention that the failure to pass the departmental test 
by the Government servant concerned after having been put in more than two 
decades of service cannot stand in the way of his enjoying the benefits of 
increments etc., particularly, because he had been accorded exemption, is not 
correct. [84 G.] 
(2) It is true that Rule 3 of the Leitem Patent Appeal of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court Orders and Rules, Vol. 5, Chapter 2-C, in form, strikes a 
• 
\ 
PUNJAB v. SHAMLAL (Krishna Iyer, !.) 
83: 
mandatory note and, in design, is intended to facilitate plurality of Judges· 
hearing the appeal, equipped with a set of relevant papers. May be, there is 
force in the view,. that certain basic records must be before the Court along 
with the appeal if the Court is to function satisfactorily in the exercise of its 
appellate power. Jn this sense, the needs of the Rule transcend the directory 
level and may perhaps be considered a mandatory need. [85 D-EJ .• 
il 
(3) Even taking a stern view, every minor detail in Rule 3 cannot carry 
' 
, a compulsory or imperative import. Three copies would certainly be a greater 
advantage, but what is the core of the matter is not the numher but the presence; 
and the over emphasis on three copies is mistaken. Perhaps, the Rule requires 
three copies and failure to comply therewith may be an irregularity. 
What is 
of the essence of Rule 3 is not that three copies should b.e furnis~ed, but that 
copies of all the three important documents referred to ·in that rule shall be 
produ.:ed. 
The Court, if it thinks it neceS'3itous, exercise its discretion and 
grant further time for formal compliance with the Rule, if the copies fall short 
of the requisite number. Where· the non-compliance, though procedural, will 
. 
thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the Rule is manda-

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