Birwati Chaudhary vs The State Of Haryana

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8376 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.21546 of 2017]

Smt. Birwati Chaudhary & Ors. .. Appellants

Versus

The State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified 2) This appeal arises from the interim order dated Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.08.20 16:41:00 IST Reason:

10.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh in C.M. No.10834 of 2017 in

1 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 ad­interim 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 ad­interim stay observing:

“As the required land is lying vacant, we do not find any reason to grant any stay.”

2

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 ad­interim 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.

3

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 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

4 remand the case to the High Court for the reasons

mentioned above.

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

………...................................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] New Delhi;

August 20, 2018

5