Lt. Governor & Ors vs Shiv Chander More & Ors
- SCC(2008) 4 SCC 690
- Neutral2008 INSC 467
- SCR[2008] 6 SCR 106
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a representation before an administrative authority seeks renewal of a license and the authority finds that a second renewal is not permissible under applicable law, a High Court cannot set aside that decision by granting relief on a different ground (such as objection to eviction action) that was never raised in or decided upon in the representation before the authority. Where a Single Judge of a High Court has held that binding precedent is applicable to the facts of a case, a Division Bench cannot take a contrary view and hold that the same precedent is not applicable without identifying and articulating distinguishing features that set the case apart.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. We find the approach of the High Court, (both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench), to be erroneous. It is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the representation made on 05.05.2000 by Shiv Chander More was for a fresh grant of license. The Ltd. Governor found and, in our view, rightly, that a second renewal was not permissible referring to a judgment of this Court in Ratan Kaur Vs. Union of India (1997 (10) SCC
61).
The order was challenged before learned Single Judge. Strangely, though learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable but nevertheless granted relief to the respondent. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench by the Lt. Governor, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar. Peculiarly, the Division Bench found that the decision in Ratan Kaur's case (supra) to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Once learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable, it was not open to the Division Bench to take a different view without even indicating any distinguishing feature. However, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the representation did not reflect the correct state of affairs, and in fact, what was being objected to was the action for eviction. That matter was never projected before the Lt. Governor and, as noted above, the prayer was for renewal. The order of the Lt. Governor, therefore, was legal and proper and the High Court should not have interfered with it. If the respondent has any remedy, as claimed, other than seeking fresh grant and/or renewal, that did not fall for consideration in the representation before the Lt. Governor and the High Court. We express no opinion in that regard.
3. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2004
In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5091 of 2004, this appeal is allowed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free