Supreme Court of India
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. versus RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS. on 15 February 2021
544
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.
v.
RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.9404/2019)FEBRUARY 15, 2021
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure: Practice of pronouncing the finaloperative part of the order without supporting reasons –Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are prejudiced ifthe reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy ofapproaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized – Itindeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved tochallenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeedingparty is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation – Thisprinciple has been restated by the Supreme Court on severaloccasions wherein delay in delivery of judgments has been observedto be in violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India – In theinstant case, National Commission had passed operative order on26.04.2019 and its reasoned judgment was passed only after eightmonths – Direction to the President of the National Commission tolook into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practiceis discontinued and the reasoned judgment is passed along with theoperative order – In all the matters where reasons are yet to bedelivered, it must be ensured that the same are made available tothe litigating parties positively within a period of two months.
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi 1984(1) SCC 596 : [1984] 2 SCR 50; Anil Rai v. State ofBihar 2001 (7) SCC 318 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298;Zahira Habibulla M. Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat& Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3467; Mangat Ram v. State ofHaryana 2008 (7) SCC 96 : [2008] 2 SCR 80;Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh& Anr. AIR 201 SC 310 : [2017] 1 SCR 286; BalajiBaliram Mupade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra& Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 pronounced on29.10.2020); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 2020 pronouncedon 11.12.2020); SJVNL v. M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (CivilAppeal No. 494 of 2021 pronounced on 12.02.2021)- relied on.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2019 of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in ConsumerCase No. 671 of 2019.
D
Anish R. Shah, T. V. George, Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, ChanchalKumar Ganguli, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
8
Decisions referred to
In this index
4
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
In the present case, the reasoned order was passed on 20.12.2019by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NationalCommission” for short) in C.A. No.9404 of 2019. A fresh civil appealwas filed before this Court being C.A. No.6476 of 2020, which has beendismissed vide Order dated 06.3.2020.
E
This Court had vide Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the Registrarof the National Commission to submit a Report stating the number ofcases in which reasoned judgments had not been passed, even thoughthe operative order had been pronounced in Court. By the report dated27.7.2020, we have been informed that as on 20.12.2019, there were 85such cases in which the operative order had been pronounced, but reasonedjudgments were not delivered so far.
F
G
The fact which has been brought to our notice by the Registrar ofthe Commission can, in no manner, be countenanced that between thedate of operative portion of the order and the reasons are yet to beprovided, or the hiatus period is much more than what has been observed H
Ato be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reservedjudgments. In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of this Court, as farback in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the seriousdifficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was beingadopted by the adjudicating authorities including High Courts/BCommissions, that of pronouncing the final operative part of the orderswithout supporting reasons. This was later again discussed by this CourtinAnil RaiVs. State of Bihar2001(7) SCC 318.
Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are beingprejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legalCremedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized.It indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved tochallenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeedingparty is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.
The afore-mentioned principle has been emphatically restated byDthis Court on several occasions including inZahira Habibulla M. Sheikh& Ors.Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.[AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 80-82];Mangat RamVs. State of Haryana [2008 (7) SCC 96 paras 5-10];Ajay Singh& Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.[AIR 2017SC 310] and more recently inBalaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. Vs. TheEState of Maharashtra & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 pronouncedon 29.10.2020) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaixhu Xie & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 2020 pronounced on 11.12.2020) and SJVNLVs. M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021pronounced on 12.02.2021) wherein the delay in delivery of judgmentshas been observed to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution ofFIndia and the problems gets aggravated when the operative portion ismade available early, and the reasons follow much later, or are not madeavailable for an indefinite period.
In the instant case, the operative order was pronounced on26.04.2019, and in the reasons disclosed, there is a hiatus period of eightGmonths.
Let this Order be placed before the President of the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission to look into the matter, andtake necessary steps so that this practice is discontinued, and the reasonedJudgment is passed alongwith the operative order. We would like toH
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. v.RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.
observe that in all matters where reasons are yet to be delivered, it mustbe ensured that the same are made available to the litigating partiespositively within a period of two months.
With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of. Pendingapplication(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Divya Pandey
Appeal disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H