LexU.P.S.R.TC. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1153 ~ U.P.S.R.TC. A V. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2009 MARCH 25, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] .. Judgment/Order: Non-reasoned order- Dismissal of writ petition without indicating reasons - Propriety of - Held: Not c proper- On plainest consideration of justice, High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of application of its mind, all the more when its order was amenable to further avenue of challenge - Absence of reasons rendered High Court's judgment not sustainable - ·Supreme Court has extraordinary power under Article 136 and D can reject appeals at SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons and analogy cannot be made with such powers while dealing with. writ petition- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136, 122. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Scope of. E The respondent-workman was found guilty of .. charges levelled and was removed from service. Labour court directed re-instatement with 50% back wages. The writ petition was filed which was dismissed summarily by F High Court after issuance of notice to the respondent who filed his reply. In the instant appeal, stand of the appellant was that the order of High Court was non-reasoned . .. G Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court initially issued notice and reply was filed by the respondent. After that High Court 1153 H 1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C. R. A dismissed the writ petition in a summary manner. It cannot be said that the various aspects highlighted by the appellant were without any substance. The effect of it was to be enquired in the writ petition which apparently was not done. No reason was indicated. The dismissal of the B writ petition in such summary manner without indicating any reason was clearly indefensible. [Paras 6,7] [1157-B-D] 1.2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative c 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. [Para 8] [1157-E] D Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974) LCR 120; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 sec 568 - referred to. 2. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of E this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, High Court is not the final court F in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to appeal. Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every ~ G error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136. The powers of this Court under Article 136 are special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition. H [Para 11] [1159-A-D] U.P.S.R.TC. V. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA 1155 Dr Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of UP & Ors. (2008) 3 A sec 172 - relied on. Case Law Reference (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 referred to Para 9 (1974) LCR 120 referred to Para 9 B (2004 (5) sec 568 referred to Para 10 • (2008) 3 sec 112 relied on Para 12 .. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1883 c of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 09.11.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52959 of 2005. D Anuvrat Sharma, for the Appellants. Rachna Srivastava, Mohd. Noorullah, Himani J., for the Respondents. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing F the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.