The High Court at Nainital disposed of condonation of delay applications and finally dismissed Special Appeals challenging consent orders, holding them not maintainable following a prior order, granting liberty for review.
Liberty granted to appellants to seek review of the orders under appeal. Special Appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 312 of 2019
Versus
Ravindra Singh Rawat & Another … Respondents
Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/appellants. Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the respondent-writ petitioner. Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
With
Special Appeal No. 314 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand & Others … Appellants
Versus
Sudhir Lakhera & Another … Respondents
Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/appellants. Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the respondent-writ petitioner. Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Special Appeal No. 315 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand & Others … Appellants
Versus
Dipti Martolia & Another … Respondents
Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/appellants.
Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Lalit Samant, Advocate, for the respondent-writ petitioner. Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Special Appeal No. 316 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand & Others … Appellants
Versus
Devendra Thapliyal & Another … Respondents
2
Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/appellants. Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the respondent-writ petitioner. Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Special Appeal No. 321 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand & Others … Appellants
Versus
Deepak Rawat & Another … Respondents
Sri Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/appellants. Sri Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the respondent-writ petitioner. Sri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)
Applications, seeking condonation of delay in preferring these appeals, are not opposed by Sri Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Applications made, therefor, stand disposed of.
3
would agree that the subject matter of these Special Appeals is covered by the order passed by us in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2019 dated 15.03.2019.
5. No costs.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 2.5.2019 2.5.2019
2.5.2019
Prabodh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Appeals were maintainable challenging consent orders.
Whether delay applications in preferring these appeals required a separate hearing.
Whether the appellate court must address registry deficiencies before final disposal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Appeal No. 162 of 2019Relied on¶35
State of Uttarakhand & Others
Ravindra Singh Rawat & Another
Sudhir Lakhera & Another
Dipti Martolia & Another
Deepak Rawat & Another
Ramesh Ranganathan
Narayan Singh Dhanik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
