Allowed

Prabhu Nath Rai v. Dist. Inspector of Schools and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018SPLAD/557/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appellate Court allowed an appeal against a writ order dismissed in default. The court held that the single Bench erred in dismissing the petition without assigning any reasons, as reasoned judgments are required when adjudicating on merits. The order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order dated 4th January, 2018 set aside, and the petition for writ remanded for fresh adjudication.

Prabhu Nath Rai Vs Dist. Inspector of Schools and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 557 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Prabhu Nath Rai Respondent :- Dist. Inspector Of Schools And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi 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 202 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 form 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 4th January, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No. 50853 of 2000.

¶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 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.

¶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

¶13

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 4th January, 2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for its adjudication afresh.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.8.2018 Rameez

¶16

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

Prabhu Nath Rai v. Dist. Inspector of Schools and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Nath Rai v. Dist. Inspector of Schools and 3 Ors.

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 Baba Raghav Das Krishak Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Superintending Engineer, 14TH Circle Irrigation Works, Azamgarh and 5 Ors.

Nagar Panchayat and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ram Pravesh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Rekha Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others