Allowed

Mahesh Kumar v. General Manager Kisan Shakari Sugar Mills Ltd. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018SPLAD/786/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a beyond-limitation complaint, the Special Appeal Court set aside an impugned writ order passed by the learned single Bench. The High Court held that the single Bench dismissed the writ petition without assigning any reasons, violating the settled law, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.01.2018 set aside; writ petition remanded to learned single Bench for fresh adjudication with reasons.

Mahesh Kumar Vs General Manager Kisan Shakari… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 786 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Mahesh Kumar Respondent :- General Manager Kisan Shakari Sugar Mills Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Vrindavan Mishra

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 248 days. Ignoring the same, we have looked into merits of the case.

¶6

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 01.01.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No. 50572 of 1999.

¶7

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".

¶8

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.

¶9

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 appellantpetitioner in petition for writ.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 04.01.2018 is set aside. The petition for writ is remanded to the learned single Bench for its adjudication afresh.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.10.2018 Prajapati

¶14

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J] [Govind Mathur, J]

Mahesh Kumar v. General Manager Kisan Shakari Sugar Mills Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar v. General Manager Kisan Shakari Sugar Mills Ltd. and 2 Others

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

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

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

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

Himanshu Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P.and 3ORS