Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 – High Court disposed of writ petition without deciding it on merits and directed the State to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal which was under challenge before it – On appeal by State, held: The High Court disposed of the writ petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is unsustainable – Order of the High Court is bereft of reasoning – When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order – Matter remanded to High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits – Practice and Procedure.
Remanding the matter to High Court, the Court HELD:1. From the writ petition produced on record, it appears that the order passed by the Tribunal was challenged on a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the writ petition has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court on merits. There is no discussion at all on any of the grounds raised in the writ petition. The High Court disposed of the writ petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is unsustainable. The High Court was required to decide and dispose of the writ petition on merits and consider the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. [Para 2.1] [81-G; 82-B]
2. The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the writ petition without deciding the writ petition on merits cannot be appreciated at all. When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. [Para 2.2][82-C]
3. The order of the High Court is bereft of reasoning. Diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents. The matter is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits. [Paras 3, 4][83-D-E]
Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Circle 25(3) & Ors.(Civil Appeal No.2200/2022); Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443 : [2018]
7 SCR 1130; and Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 516 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.