This court allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a case and the rejection of a restoration application. The court held the orders arbitrary and illegal due to lack of application of mind and remitted the matter to the authority.
Orders dated 08.05.2018 and 13.12.2018 were set aside and the matter remitted to the authority below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18478 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardhan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijay Kant Dwivedi
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Petitioner has assailed the orders dated 08.05.2018 dismissing the case and the order dated 13.12.2018 rejecting the restoration application.
The order dated 08.05.2018 records the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter the authority below finds that the claimant has not been prosecuting her case after tendering her rejoinder on 30.08.2016. On this footing the matter was dismissed in the absence of the evidence.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed a restoration application.
While dismissing the restoration application by the impugned order dated 13.12.2018, the authority below has reiterated the recitals in the order dated 08.05.2018. The authority below
finds that the order dated 08.05.2018 was passed on merits and hence the authority does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the aforesaid order. With this reasoning the restoration application filed by the petitioner was rejected.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 discloses that the order of date is ex parte to the petitioner. Further the order dated 08.05.2018 is non-speaking which does not consider the pleadings and the material already in the record. The order reflects non-application of mind and is illegal and arbitrary.
The authority below has failed to redeem the illegality in the order dated 08.05.2018 by rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 13.12.2018.
The orders dated 08.05.2018 and 13.12.2018 are arbitrary, illegal and are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
The matter is remitted to the authority below to decide the case in accordance with law.
The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the authority below.
The authority below shall decide the reference within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In case the petitioner does not cooperate in the proceedings before the authority below, the authority below shall return a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed.
Sri Vijay Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Nadeem
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 was illegal and arbitrary due to non-application of mind.
Whether the authority below had jurisdiction to reject the restoration application.
Whether the writ petition against the dismissal and rejection of restoration is maintainable.
Poonam Yadav
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
