Allowed

Daya Shankar Tiwari v. Dist. Inspector of Schools and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018SPLAD/618/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and allowed the appeal. Holding that the Single Bench erred in dismissing the writ petition without assigning reasons for its findings, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 3rd August 2018 is set aside and the writ petition is remanded for fresh adjudication by the Single Bench.

Daya Shankar Tiwari Vs Dist… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 618 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Daya Shankar Tiwari Respondent :- Dist. Inspector Of Schools And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Upadhyay,Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Kalpna Upadhyay 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 01 day.

¶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 3rd August, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No. 40313 of 1997.

¶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

¶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 3rd August, 2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for its adjudication afresh.

¶15

Interim order that was already in operation till dismissal of the writ petition shall also stand restored.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Rameez

¶17

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

Daya Shankar Tiwari v. Dist. Inspector of Schools and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Shankar Tiwari v. Dist. Inspector of Schools and 2 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

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Pankaj Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Premlata Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.