Allowed

Upendra Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2018SPLAD/537/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal, the High Court held that the Single Bench’s dismissal of a writ petition was bad because it gave no reasons for the decision. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12th July 2018 set aside; the petition for writ remanded to the learned Single Bench for adjudication afresh.

Upendra Bahadur Singh Vs District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 537 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Upendra Bahadur Singh Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools Azamgarh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Samarath Singh,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Kumar Jaiswal

¶4

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

¶5

Order on Delay Condonation Application

¶6

This appeal is barred by limitation from 6 days.

¶7

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.

¶8

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶9

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 12^th July, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 54828 of 2002.

¶10

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".

¶11

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

¶12

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 want of prosecution but if any merits were examined, then it was necessary to give reasons for

¶13

not accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the appellantpetitioner in petition for writ.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 12^th July, 2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned Single Bench for its adjudication afresh. Order Date :- 27.8.2018 Shubham

¶17

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

Upendra Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bare Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Bharti Vs SBI and 3 Ors.

Km. Sweta Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mithilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suneel Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

C/M Janta U.M.V. Thr. Manager Surendra Pratap Singh and Anr. Vs C/M Janta U.M.V. Thr. Manager Jawahar Lal and 6 Othrs.