Supreme Court of India
SMT. BIRWATI CHAUDHARY & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 20 August 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
A
SMT. BIRWATI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8376 of 2018)
B
AUGUST 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Interlocutory Order: Appellant filed a Writ petition before theHigh Court and prayed for grant of interim stay during pendencyof Writ petition in relation to the subject mater of the land inCquestion – High Court rejected the application for stay observingthat since the required land is lying vacant, there is no reason togrant any stay – On appeal, held: High Court did not give adequatereason for not granting stay and the reason given was not in itselfjustified reason – Matter remitted to High Court to decide the adDinterim prayer afresh.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,the Court HELD: The Court is required to support justifiablereason(s) to either grant or reject keeping in view the facts andEthe law applicable to the controversy involved. It was not sofound in the impugned order and, therefore, the order of remandis called for to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.[Para 9] [935-G-H; 936-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8376 ofF2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2017 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No. 10834 of 2017 in CivilWrit Petition No. 10546 of 2016 .
GJasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Manoj Swarup, AnkitSwarup, Ms. Mansi Jain, Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Mukul Kumar, RakeshK. Mudgal, Dinesh Mudgal, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advs. for the appearingparties.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the interim order dated 10.08.2017passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.M.No.10834 of 2017 in Civil Writ Petition No.10546 of 2016 whereby theHigh Court rejected the application for stay filed by the appellants herein.
3. Few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra for the disposalof the appeal, which involves a short question.
4. In a pending writ petition (C.W.P. No.10546/2016) filed bythe appellants herein against the State in the High Court of Punjab &Haryana, the writ petitioners (appellants herein) prayed for grant of ad-interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition in relation to thesubject matter of the land in question.
5. By impugned order, the High Court declined to grant the ad-interim stay observing:
“As the required land is lying vacant, we do not findany reason to grant any stay.”
6. It is against the aforementioned order, the writ petitioners havefiled this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set asidethe impugned order and remand the case to the High Court to decide thead-interim prayer made by the appellants (writ petitioners) afresh or/and consider disposing of the writ petition itself, as the case may be, inaccordance with law.
8. The reason to remand the case has occasioned due to thefact that firstly, no adequate reason is given in the impugned order fornot granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justifythe rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in thewrit petition.
9. In short, justifiable reason(s) to support either the grant orrejection need(s) to be stated keeping in view the facts and the lawapplicable to the controversy involved. It is not so found in the impugned A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Aorder and hence the order of remand is called for to decide the matterafresh in accordance with law.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the case isremanded to the High Court to decide the issue afresh on merits strictlyBin accordance with law without being influenced by any of ourobservations made above, which we have refrained to make havingformed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasonsmentioned above.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H