Partly allowed

Mamta Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018SPLA/979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal against a Single Bench Writ Petition order dismissing the Writ Petition in default without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that reasons are mandatory when disposing of a writ petition after adjudication on merits and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.09.2018 set aside. Writ Petition remanded to Single Bench for fresh adjudication. Interim order restored.

Mamta Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 979 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Mamta Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Asthana

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 13th September, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No.13775 of 2004.

¶6

Under the order aforesaid, learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that "petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for".

¶7

Learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ in absence of the counsel for the appellant-petitioner as he failed to appear before the Court though the matter was called in second round.

¶8

In appeal, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that learned single Bench could have dismissed the petition for writ in default or for the want of prosecution but if any merits were examined, then it was necessary to give reasons for not accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-petitioner in petition for writ.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶10

From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that learned single Bench arrived at the conclusion that no case is made out for interference without assigning any reasons. It is well settled that while disposing of a petition for writ after its adjudication on merits, the writ Court is required to give reasons in support of its findings. No such reasons in the instant matter are given. The order impugned as such is apparently bad.

¶11

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 13th September, 2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for its adjudication afresh. The interim order vacated under the order dated 13th September, 2018 is also restored.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.10.2018 Bhaskar

¶13

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Mamta Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjila Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Kumar Pathak Vs the Housing Commissioner U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Another

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Hanuman Singh and 85 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Singhasan Chauhan Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Shikha Malviya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.