K. Madan Mohan Rao vs Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6972 OF 2022 @ SLP (C) No. 17247 OF 2022 @ SLP (C) Diary No. 28749/2022

K. MADAN MOHAN RAO .....Appellant(s)

VERSUS

BHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS. .....Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

1. The applications seeking exemption from filing the impugned

order dated 15.06.2022 and filing the petition without the

impugned order (I.A. No. 136063 of 2022 and I.A. No. 136061 of

2021) are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this appeal, essentially the grievance projected before

us is that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) moved in the Election Petition

filed by the present appellant in the High Court for Telangana at

Hyderabad, was taken up for consideration after a considerable

delay and, after a prolonged hearing, ultimately, the order was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2022.09.27 19:18:14 IST Reason: pronounced on 15.06.2022, purportedly allowing the application

1 and rejecting the election petition filed by the present

appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing the application

is not available as yet.

4. On the matter being taken up for consideration, learned

senior counsel has appeared for the contesting respondent i.e.

respondent No. 1 in caveat.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

contesting respondent that respondent Nos. 15 and 16 arrayed in

this appeal were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties

by order passed by the High Court on 17.02.2020. The submissions

are taken note of. Even otherwise, looking to the subject matter

of this appeal, service of notice on other respondents does not

appear necessary and stands dispensed with.

6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we

have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.

7. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant has referred to the background aspects relating to the

proceedings in the election petition and has also referred to the

fact that in view of the delay caused, the appellant had earlier

approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 4518 of 2021, where this

Court granted liberty to the appellant to make a request before

the Chief Justice of the High Court in its order dated

26.03.2021.

8. It has been pointed out that, after the said order dated

26.03.2021 and a request having been made to Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of the High Court, the matter was placed before another

Hon’ble Judge and was proceeded further but then, hearing on the

2 application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC itself took a long

time with several dates of hearing; the order was reserved on

22.12.2021; the parties filed written submissions in the first

week of January, 2022; and then, the matter was listed again on

01.04.2022 and was re-reserved. It is pointed out that

ultimately, the order was orally pronounced by the Hon’ble Judge

on 15.06.2022 but, that had only been the pronouncement of the

result and no reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It has

also been submitted that even after more than three months, the

reasoned order is still not available to the parties.

9. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel has particularly

referred to paragraph 10(v) of decision of this Court in the case

of “Anil Rai v. State of Bihar” reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318; and

paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Constitution Bench decision of this

Court in the case of “State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh

Talwandi” reported in (1984) 1 SCC 596 while submitting that in

the given set of facts and circumstances, the impugned order

deserves to be interfered with for want of reasons.

10. Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the

contesting respondents has, in the first place, submitted that in

the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the

Act of 1951’), particularly Section 116A thereof, an appeal lies

against an order passed by the High Court and a properly

constituted appeal having not been preferred, the matter does not

require consideration by way of an appeal by special leave.

Learned senior counsel for the respondent has also referred to

the decisions aforesaid, and while relying on paragraph 2 in the

3 case of Anil Rai(supra), has argued that on the fundamental maxim

actus curiae neminem gravabit, an act of the Court ought not to

prejudice anyone and hence, no interference is called for against

the interest of the contesting respondent, when his application

has been considered and allowed on merits. The learned senior

counsel has also submitted with reference to paragraph 36 of the

decision in Anil Rai (supra) that in any case, this Court did not

alter the orders impugned therein despite certain observations

referable to the facts and circumstances of that case.

11. As regards the Constitution Bench decision in Jagdev Singh

Talwandi(supra), learned senior counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the observations therein, essentially relating to

the matters concerning violation of fundamental rights or other

rights affecting human dignity cannot, as such, be applied to

every case or every cause. The emphasis of the learned counsel

has been that in any case, no interference at this juncture is

called for when the High Court has devoted time in hearing the

application and has indeed pronounced the order, even if reasons

are awaited.

12. Upon our expressing reservations in view of the peculiar

nature of the position obtaining at present that even after

pronouncement of the result on 15.06.2022, the reasons for the

verdict are not forthcoming even until this time when this matter

is being heard on 26th September, 2022; and our prima facie view

that the order impugned deserves to be set aside only for want of

reasons, learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted,

after taking instructions, that in any case, the contesting

4 respondent has a strong case to argue on the application under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC and he would be willing to co-operate even

if the application is set down for consideration afresh.

13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have taken note of the totality of

circumstances of this case pertaining to election petition filed

by the present appellant in relation to the elections held on

23.05.2019.

14. Apart from the statutory requirements under Section 86(7)

of the Act of 1951, of expeditious proceedings and conclusion of

trial of the election petition within six months from the date of

presentation, it is even otherwise indisputable that this

litigation, by its very nature, calls for expeditious proceedings

while being assigned a specific priority by the Court dealing

with the same.

15. In the present matter, we do not find it necessary to refer

to or dilate upon the previous proceedings, including the order

passed by this Court on 21.03.2021 but, find it difficult to

countenance the position that even after pronouncement of the

result on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on

15.06.2022, the reasoned order is not available to the parties

until this date.

16. In Jagdev Singh Talwandi’s case (supra), the Constitution

Bench of this Court has observed, while stating its expectation

for appropriate compliance in the following expressions:

“30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of

5 pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment.”

17. In Anil Rai’s case (supra), this Court provided a few basic

guidelines regarding pronouncement of judgment/orders while

expecting them to be adhered to by all the concerned. Therein,

amongst others, in the referred paragraph 10(v), this Court said

as under: -

“(v). If the judgment, for any reason, is not pro- nounced within a period of six months, any of the par- ties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an ap- plication before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circum- stances.”

18. Though several other submissions are sought to be made by

the learned senior counsel for the respondents seeking to either

distinguish the aforesaid decisions or to suggest that the said

6 decisions are not directly applicable as precedents for the fact

situation of the present case but, we are of the view that the

guidelines and observations therein remain fundamental to the

course of dispensation of justice in any cause before the Court

and the principle set out therein need to be applied with

necessary variation, as may be necessary in the given fact

situation of any particular case.

19. In the present case, as indicated above, the position

obtaining at present is that even after more than three months

from pronouncement of the order by the High Court, the reasons

are not forthcoming and are not available with either of the

parties. Looking to the nature of litigation and the overall

circumstances, we find it difficult to countenance this position.

20. Even if we take into consideration the submissions made on

behalf of the respondents about availability of the remedy of

appeal to this Court, in our view, such an appeal, which could be

preferred on the question/s of law or fact, would also remain an

empty formality for the simple reason that neither determination

of question of law nor determination of any question of fact by

the High Court for the purpose of dealing with the application

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is available to the parties. In

continuity to this, we are constrained to observe that a party to

the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for

availability of the reasons for the order of the Court.

Moreover, when the matter relates to the election petition under

the Act of 1951, which itself is a time-sensitive matter, we find

no reason that the appellant be relegated to the statutory remedy

7 of appeal under Section 116A of the Act of 1951 in this case.

21. Having said so, we do not propose to dwell on the merits of

the case for the fair stand taken on behalf of the contesting

respondent by the learned senior counsel after taking

instructions that the respondent is ready and prepared to argue

the matter afresh before the High Court, if the order impugned is

not approved by this Court.

22. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, we

are clearly of the view that the order dated 15.06.2022, as said

to have been passed by the High Court in disposal of the

application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, deserves to be

disapproved only for the reason that even until this date, the

reasons for the said order are not available with either of the

parties nor are available on the website of the High Court nor

the copy of the order has been supplied despite the parties

having made the applications seeking certified copy of the order.

23. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the peculiar

circumstances and rather unsavory situation of the present case,

we deem it appropriate, rather necessary, that the impugned order

be set aside and the matter be restored for re-consideration of

the application I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in Election Petition No. 34 of

2019.

24. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, we also deem

it appropriate that this order and the entire matter be placed

for necessary orders before the Chief Justice of the High Court,

who may issue appropriate assigning orders for dealing with the

8 matter pursuant to this order and in accordance with law.

25. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand

at notice to appear before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High

Court on 10.10.2022.

26. It goes without saying that we have not dealt with the

merits of the matter either way and all the aspects remain open

for consideration before the High Court in accordance with law.

27. The appeal stands allowed in the manner and to the extent

indicated above.

28. All pending applications stand disposed of.

..................J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI)1

..................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

New Delhi;

September 26, 2022.

9