Allowed

Ratan Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2018SPLAD/692/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appellate Court held that a Single Bench's dismissal of a writ petition without assigning reasons was bad in law. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the petition for fresh adjudication with reasons. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, the order dated 17th May, 2018 is set aside, and the writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Bench.

Ratan Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 692 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ratan Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Upadhyay,Vikram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh

¶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 91 days.

¶7

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellants had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, they were 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 17th May, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 22833 of 2004.

¶10

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".

¶11

Learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ in absence of counsel for the appellant-petitioners 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 appellantpetitioners 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 not accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the

¶13

appellant-petitioners in petition for writ.

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants 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 17th May, 2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned Single Bench for its adjudication afresh. Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Shubham

¶17

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

Ratan Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Ganeshi Lal Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Setho Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Goverdhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Awadhesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

State of U.P. and 3 Ors. Vs Chakradhar