Allowed

Smt. Vidyawati Devi v. Up State Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2018SPLAD/783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the High Court held that the single Bench order dismissing the writ petition without assigning reasons was legally bad. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order and remanding it for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the order dated 24.08.2018 was set aside, and the writ petition was remanded to the single Bench for fresh adjudication.

Smt. Vidyawati Devi Vs Up State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 783 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Vidyawati Devi Respondent :- Up State Power Corporation Ltd. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi,Prakash Chandra Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Srivastava

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 18 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 24th August, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No.35988 of 2001.

¶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 appellantpetitioner 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 for writ after its adjudication on merits, the writ Court is required to give reasons in support

¶13

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 24th August, 2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for its adjudication afresh.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.10.2018 Bhaskar

¶16

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

Smt. Vidyawati Devi v. Up State Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidyawati Devi v. Up State Power Corporation Ltd. 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

Shikha Malviya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Devendra Singh and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Roshni Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

satendra kumar dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sarita Rani and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.