Narain & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr
- Citation2011 SCC OnLine SC 377
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court must provide reasons for its orders disposing of writ petitions and cannot dismiss them summarily without assigning reasons therefor; an order of a court lacking reasons for its decision is remittable and must be set aside to require the court to dispose of the matter afresh by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NARAIN AND ORS. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2001 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4708/2009)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
This order will dispose of both these appeals.
These appeals emanate from the judgments and
orders dated 27th August, 2008 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan
at Jodhpur in Civil Writ Petition Nos.1326/2008 and
7919/2007 by which the writ petitions have been
dismissed summarily without giving any reasons
therefor.
-2-
Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusing the records, we are of
the considered view that the High Court ought to
have given reasons for deciding the matters. We
are, therefore, constrained to set aside the
impugned judgments and orders dated 27th August, 2008
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Civil Writ
Petition Nos.1326/2008 and 7919/2007, and remit
these matters to the High Court for deciding them
afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned
order.
Since the matters have been pending for quite
some time, We request the High Court to dispose of
both the writ petitions as expeditiously as
possible, in any event, within a period of one year
from the date of communication of this order.
These appeals are disposed of with the
aforementioned observations.
.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA) New Delhi;
February 22, 2011.
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