Partly allowed

Sanjay Narang v. Union Of India and Others

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2019SPA/544/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal was preferred against an order dismissing a Writ Petition and imposing costs due to alleged suppression of a sanction order. The High Court set aside the imposition of costs and deleted the observations regarding the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The observations in paragraph 11 dismissing the petitioner for abuse of process and imposing costs of one lakh were deleted.

Sanjay Narang Vs Union Of India and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Special Appeal No. 544 of 2018

¶3

Sanjay Narang … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India & Others … Respondents

¶6

Sri Aditya Singh, Advocate, for the appellant-writ petitioner. Sri Pooran Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the Union of India/respondents 1 and 2. Sri B.S. Adhikari, Standing Counsel, for the Cantonment Board/3^rd respondent.

¶7

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.

¶8

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

¶9

The present appeal is preferred by the petitioner in WPMS No. 7 of 2017 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.6.2018 dismissing the Writ Petition with costs.

¶10

Sri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would seek deletion of paragraph 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and for the observations made therein to be set aside. In paragraph 11 of the order under appeal the learned Single Judge faulted the writ petitioner for not approaching the Court with clean hands, and for having agitated matters relying on one document or the other, instead of placing all of them before the Court at the same time. The learned Single Judge also observed that the sanction dated 30.6.2012 was never placed before the Court below, or before this Court, at the relevant time; and the petitioner continued to agitate the same by

¶11

¶12

filing one petition or the other. Holding that the petitioner had abused the process of law, the Writ Petition was dismissed imposing costs of Rupees one lakh.

¶13

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed a copy of the sanction order dated 30.6.2012, along with the Writ Petition in WPMS No. 7 of 2017. The reason for the learned Single Judge to hold that the petitioner had abused the process of law was that the sanction order dated 30.6.2012 was not placed before the District Judge, Dehradun in the First Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Trial Court dated 26.5.2012 dismissing the suit filed by him for injunction. The petitioner could not have placed a copy of the sanction order dated 30.6.2012 before the Trial Court, since his suit for injunction was dismissed even prior thereto on 26.5.2012. While the First Appeal was allowed by the District Judge, Dehradun, by his judgment and decree dated 21.9.2012, the Cantonment Board preferred a Second Appeal to this Court which was allowed by judgment dated 14.8.2013. The respondents herein had referred to the sanction order dated 30.6.2012 in the Second Appeal filed by them and yet this Court in its judgment dated 14.8.2013, while setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Dehradun dated 21.9.2012, did not fault the appellant herein for not referring to the sanction order dated 30.6.2012. The petitioner has, in fact, relied on the resolution of the Cantonment Board dated 30.6.2012 in WPMS No. 7 of 2017, and it is not the case of the respondents, even before us, that the appellant-writ petitioner had suppressed any material and relevant facts in the affidavit filed in support of WPMS No. 7 of 2017.

¶14

¶15

Sri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge does not necessitate examination on merits as the subject building has since been demolished. He would only request that the observations made in paragraph 11 of the order under appeal, and imposition of costs, be set aside.

¶16

As it is not even the case of the respondents that the appellant-writ petitioner had suppressed facts in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. (M/S) No. 7 of 2017, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order under appeal to the extent costs of Rupees one lakh was imposed on the appellant-writ petitioner for not referring to the resolution dated 30.6.2012 in the First Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Trial Court dated 26.5.2012, dismissing his suit for injunction, since this Court in its judgment in the Second Appeal dated 14.8.2013, while setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Dehradun in the First Appeal dated 21.9.2012, did not fault the appellant-writ petitioner for not filing a copy of the resolution dated 30.6.2012 before the District Judge, Dehradun. While we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition on its merits, suffice it to delete the observations made, and the directions issued, in paragraph 11 of the said order.

¶17

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶18

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 1.5.2019 1.5.2019 Prabodh

¶19

Sanjay Narang v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Narang v. Union Of India and 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

Anil Dabral Vs Bhwan Tamta and Others

State of Uttarakhand Vs Vijaya Pandey

Jagdish Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Anita Rauthan Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand Vs Gopal Singh Bisht

Ram Sevak Vs State of Uttarakhand