Allowed

Jai Chandra Singh v. Regional Joint Director of Education and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018SPLAD/445/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition. The court condoned the delay in filing. It allowed the appeal, holding the writ order bad in law as it dismissed the petition on merits without assigning any reasons. The impugned order was set aside and the petition remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 8th December, 2017 is set aside and the petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for adjudication afresh.

Jai Chandra Singh Vs Regional Joint… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 445 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jai Chandra Singh Respondent :- Regional Joint Director Of Education And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 195 days.

¶6

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶7

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 8th December, 2017 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No.42332 of 1999.

¶8

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".

¶9

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.

¶10

In appeal, the submission of learned counsel for the appellantpetitioner 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 8th December, 2017 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for its adjudication afresh.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Bhaskar

¶16

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

Jai Chandra Singh v. Regional Joint Director of Education and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Chandra Singh v. Regional Joint Director of Education and 3 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

C/M Fisheries Cooperative Society Limited Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Asif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Magru Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Committee of Management Sri Mahauru Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Ravindra Nath Kaushal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shakti Kumar Mishra Vs State of Up and Another