5 Nov 2023 4:24 PM GMT
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice K.V. Vishwanathan (in-chamber), while hearing an application assailing the registrar’s refusal order, observed that the matter involving Court’s interpretation does not fulfil the “ingredients” of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules. The same permits the party to appeal against such refusal order within the timeline of 15 days. Thus,...
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice K.V. Vishwanathan (in-chamber), while hearing an application assailing the registrar’s refusal order, observed that the matter involving Court’s interpretation does not fulfil the “ingredients” of Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules. The same permits the party to appeal against such refusal order within the timeline of 15 days. Thus, the Chamber Judge did not interfere with the registrar’s order and placed the matter before the Court.
Order XV Rule 5 reads as follows: “The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter, but the petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.”
The Court ordered:
“Applying the principle analogous to Order XV Rule 5 and considering that the mater involves the interpretation of the order of the Court, it is only proper that Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 13431/2023 be placed before the Hon’ble Court subject to the orders of the competent authority.”
In the present case, the order of the Registrar was challenged, wherein it declined to receive the Contempt Petition in a civil appeal (Sanjay Singh Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh) where the issue pertained to the ad-hoc appointment of teachers. The petition was declined by the registrar on the basis of an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application in the same Civil appeal. For convenience, the relevant part, reads as follows: “We make it clear that this puts a quietus to the complete issue and no further proceedings before us or before the High Court are to be entertained.”
It has been contended on behalf of the applicants, inter alia, that even though the registrar has taken note of the averment that they, as per the order, have not been paid salaries for the period worked in the concerned institution; their plea was declined. Applicants have termed the same as “erroneous and untenable”.
Further, the Court also noted that Order V Rule 2 of the Rules, which encompasses the powers of a Judge-in-Chambers, does not confer the power to hear the present matter.
“None of the 41 sub-clauses are attracted giving the Judge-in-Chambers power to hear this appeal against the order of the Registrar.,” held the Court.
Moreover, the Court observed that, Order V sub-rule 3 of the Rules, entitles a person aggrieved from the registrar order to appeal against the same within fifteen days to the Judge in Chamber. However, the same is restricted to the order passed by the Registrar under Order V Rule 1 (Powers that can be exercised by the Registrar).
In this backdrop, the Court held that the impugned order is not covered under Order V Rule 1 and thus, passed its order.
.Case Title: SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV & ORS. V. DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS., MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 13431/2023 in Contempt Petition (Civil) D. No. 6078 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 954
Click Here To Read/Download Order