Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Narain & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr

Supreme Court22 February 2011Deepak Verma · Dalveer Bhandari

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2011(Arising out of SLP(C) No.4312/2009)

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