The Supreme Court has set aside a Rajasthan High Court judgment which did not set out even the factual controversy nor dealt with the submissions urged by the parties before it and nor examined the issues in the context of relevant provisions of the Act that governed the controversy.
A single bench of the high court had dismissed a writ petition like this: ““Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order impugned, Annex.8 has been passed in compliance of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 15.1.2001 passed inter-parties being Annex.7. It is not shown, as to how the order, Annex.8 is not in accordance with the directions contained in Annex.7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.”
The division bench, on appeal, dismissed it in limine. “Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in this appeal in the judgment of learned Single Judge who has rightly exercised his discretion in not interfering with the order passed by the Collector as the learned counsel has not been able to show how the impugned order is contrary to direction of Division Bench. In essence, thw learned counsel for the appellant tried to urge that the decision rendered in Hotechad’s case in the light of which the Division Bench in his earlier decision has directed to decide his representation, was erroneous. That is not permissible.”
The bench comprising Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre said in order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved in the lis, the least which is expected of is that the order which decides the lis between the parties should contain the brief facts involved in the case, the grounds on which the action is impugned, the stand of the parties defending the action, the submissions of the parties in support of their stand, legal provisions, if any, applicable to the controversy involved in the lis, and lastly, the brief reasons as to why the case of one party deserves acceptance or rejection, as the case may be.
Remanding the case to the single bench of the high court, the bench said: “Since the matter is quite old, we request the Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously.”
Recently, the Supreme Court had set aside a judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court because of the convoluted English used in the judgment.
Read the Judgment here.