K. MADAN MOHAN RAO versus BHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS. on 26 September 2022

Issues

1. The applications seeking exemption from filing the impugnedorder dated 15.06.2022 and filing the petition without the impugned orderD(I.A. No. 136063 of 2022 and I.A. No. 136061 of 2021) are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this appeal, essentially the grievance projected before us isthat an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) moved in the Election Petition filed by theEpresent appellant in the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad, wastaken up for consideration after a considerable delay and, after aprolonged hearing, ultimately, the order was pronounced on 15.06.2022,purportedly allowing the application and rejecting the election petitionfiled by the present appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing theFapplication is not available as yet.

4. On the matter being taken up for consideration, learned seniorcounsel has appeared for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No.1 in caveat.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for theGcontesting respondent that respondent Nos. 15 and 16 arrayed in thisappeal were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties by orderpassed by the High Court on 17.02.2020. The submissions are takennote of. Even otherwise, looking to the subject matter of this appeal,service of notice on other respondents does not appear necessary andHstands dispensed with.

6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, wehave heard the matter finally at this stage itself.

7. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellanthas referred to the background aspects relating to the proceedings in theelection petition and has also referred to the fact that in view of thedelay caused, the appellant had earlier approached this Court in SLP(C)No. 4518 of 2021, where this Court granted liberty to the appellant tomake a request before the Chief Justice of the High Court in its orderdated 26.03.2021.

8. It has been pointed out that, after the said order dated 26.03.2021and a request having been made to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of theHigh Court, the matter was placed before another Hon’ble Judge andwas proceeded further but then, hearing on the application moved underOrder VII Rule 11 CPC itself took a long time with several dates ofhearing; the order was reserved on 22.12.2021; the parties filed writtensubmissions in the first week of January, 2022; and then, the matter waslisted again on 01.04.2022 and was re-reserved. It is pointed out thatultimately, the order was orally pronounced by the Hon’ble Judge on15.06.2022 but, that had only been the pronouncement of the result andno reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It has also been submittedthat even after more than three months, the reasoned order is still notavailable to the parties.

9. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel has particularly referred toparagraph 10(v) of decision of this Court in the case of “Anil Rai v.State of Bihar” reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318; and paragraphs 30 and31 of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Stateof Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi” reported in (1984)1 SCC 596 while submitting that in the given set of facts andcircumstances, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with forwant of reasons.

10. Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the contestingrespondents has, in the first place, submitted that in the scheme of theRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the Act of 1951’), particularlySection 116A thereof, an appeal lies against an order passed by the HighCourt and a properly constituted appeal having not been preferred, thematter does not require consideration by way of an appeal by specialleave. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has also referred to A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Athe decisions aforesaid, and while relying on paragraph 2 in the case ofAnil Rai(supra), has argued that on the fundamental maxim actus curiaeneminem gravabit, an act of the Court ought not to prejudice anyoneand hence, no interference is called for against the interest of the contestingrespondent, when his application has been considered and allowed onmerits. The learned senior counsel has also submitted with reference toBparagraph 36 of the decision in Anil Rai (supra) that in any case, thisCourt did not alter the orders impugned therein despite certain observationsreferable to the facts and circumstances of that case.

11. As regards the Constitution Bench decision in Jagdev SinghTalwandi (supra), learned senior counsel for the respondents hasCsubmitted that the observations therein, essentially relating to the mattersconcerning violation of fundamental rights or other rights affecting humandignity cannot, as such, be applied to every case or every cause. Theemphasis of the learned counsel has been that in any case, no interferenceat this juncture is called for when the High Court has devoted time inDhearing the application and has indeed pronounced the order, even ifreasons are awaited.

12. Upon our expressing reservations in view of the peculiar natureof the position obtaining at present that even after pronouncement of theresult on 15.06.2022, the reasons for the verdict are not forthcomingEeven until this time when this matter is being heard on 26[th] September,2022; and our prima facie view that the order impugned deserves to beset aside only for want of reasons, learned senior counsel for therespondent has submitted, after taking instructions, that in any case, thecontesting respondent has a strong case to argue on the application underOrder VII Rule 11 CPC and he would be willing to co-operate even ifFthe application is set down for consideration afresh.

13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counselfor the parties and have taken note of the totality of circumstances ofthis case pertaining to election petition filed by the present appellant inrelation to the elections held on 23.05.2019.G

14. Apart from the statutory requirements under Section 86(7) ofthe Act of 1951, of expeditious proceedings and conclusion of trial of theelection petition within six months from the date of presentation, it iseven otherwise indisputable that this litigation, by its very nature, callsfor expeditious proceedings while being assigned a specific priority byHthe Court dealing with the same.

15. In the present matter, we do not find it necessary to refer to ordilate upon the previous proceedings, including the order passed by thisCourt on 21.03.2021 but, find it difficult to countenance the position thateven after pronouncement of the result on the application under OrderVII Rule 11 CPC on 15.06.2022, the reasoned order is not available tothe parties until this date.

16. In Jagdev Singh Talwandi’s case (supra), the ConstitutionBench of this Court has observed, while stating its expectation forappropriate compliance in the following expressions:

“30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that seriousdifficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adoptedby the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without areasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which theHigh Court intends to pass should not be announced until areasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, forexample, that a final order without a reasoned judgment isannounced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, orthat the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent asagainst the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge isacquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instantcase, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object ofpassing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them,that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing aspecial leave petition in this Court against the order passed bythe High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because,without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficultfor this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. Theresult inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by theHigh Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasonedjudgment.”

17. In Anil Rai’s case (supra), this Court provided a few basicguidelines regarding pronouncement of judgment/orders while expectingthem to be adhered to by all the concerned. Therein, amongst others, inthe referred paragraph 10(v), this Court said as under: - “(v). If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within aperiod of six months, any of the par- ties of the said lis shall beentitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the A

B

CD

EF

G

H

430SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AHigh Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to makeit over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to theChief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other orderas he deems fit in the circum- stances.”

18. Though several other submissions are sought to be made byBthe learned senior counsel for the respondents seeking to either distinguishthe aforesaid decisions or to suggest that the said decisions are notdirectly applicable as precedents for the fact situation of the presentcase but, we are of the view that the guidelines and observations thereinremain fundamental to the course of dispensation of justice in any causebefore the Court and the principle set out therein need to be applied withCnecessary variation, as may be necessary in the given fact situation ofany particular case.

19. In the present case, as indicated above, the position obtainingat present is that even after more than three months from pronouncementof the order by the High Court, the reasons are not forthcoming and areDnot available with either of the parties. Looking to the nature of litigationand the overall circumstances, we find it difficult to countenance thisposition.

20. Even if we take into consideration the submissions made onbehalf of the respondents about availability of the remedy of appeal toEthis Court, in our view, such an appeal, which could be preferred on thequestion/s of law or fact, would also remain an empty formality for thesimple reason that neither determination of question of law nordetermination of any question of fact by the High Court for the purposeof dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is availableFto the parties. In continuity to this, we are constrained to observe that aparty to the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availabilityof the reasons for the order of the Court. Moreover, when the matterrelates to the election petition under the Act of 1951, which itself is atime-sensitive matter, we find no reason that the appellant be relegatedto the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 116A of the Act of 1951Gin this case.

21. Having said so, we do not propose to dwell on the merits ofthe case for the fair stand taken on behalf of the contesting respondentby the learned senior counsel after taking instructions that the respondentis ready and prepared to argue the matter afresh before the High Court,Hif the order impugned is not approved by this Court.

22. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, weare clearly of the view that the order dated 15.06.2022, as said to havebeen passed by the High Court in disposal of the application under OrderVII Rule 11 CPC, deserves to be disapproved only for the reason thateven until this date, the reasons for the said order are not availablewith either of the parties nor are available on the website of the HighCourt nor the copy of the order has been supplied despite the partieshaving made the applications seeking certified copy of the order.

23. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the peculiarcircumstances and rather unsavory situation of the present case, wedeem it appropriate, rather necessary, that the impugned order be setaside and the matter be restored for re-consideration of the applicationI.A. No. 1 of 2020 in Election Petition No. 34 of 2019.

24. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, we also deem itappropriate that this order and the entire matter be placed for necessaryorders before the Chief Justice of the High Court, who may issueappropriate assigning orders for dealing with the matter pursuant to thisorder and in accordance with law.

25. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand atnotice to appear before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court on10.10.2022.

26. It goes without saying that we have not dealt with the meritsof the matter either way and all the aspects remain open for considerationbefore the High Court in accordance with law.

27. The appeal stands allowed in the manner and to the extentindicated above.

28. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by: Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H