Allowed

Bheem Singh and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2018SPLAD/502/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a five-month delay in filing a special appeal. It allowed the appeal, holding that the lower writ court's order dismissing the petition without assigning reasons was bad in law, and remanded the matter for afresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

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

Bheem Singh and Anr. Vs District Inspector… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 502 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Bheem Singh And Anr. Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Bheem Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 205 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, the 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. 41610 of 1999.

¶8

Under the order aforesaid, learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that "petitioners are 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-petitioners as they failed to appear before the Court though the matter was called in second round.

¶10

In appeal, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners 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-petitioners in petition for writ.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants 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

¶13

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.

¶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 :- 8.8.2018 Rameez

¶16

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

Bheem Singh and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Singh and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools and Anr.

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

Yogesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Surya Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Chitra Sachan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

State of U.P. and 2 Ors. Vs Nar Singh Mall

Director of Education(Intermediate) and 2 Ors. Vs Chandra Prakash Vishnoi