SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 576

TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
STATE OF M. P. & ORS - PETITIONERS
Versus
BHARAT SINGH BHATI & ORS - RESPONDENTS
Appeal (civil) 2351 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (C) 11968 of 2007]
Decided on : 01/04/2008

The importance of affording an opportunity for filing a return before allowing a writ application.

Headnote:

Minimum Pay-Scale - Writ Application - The court set aside the orders of the High Court and directed the appellants to file a return to the writ application, emphasizing the need for the High Court to afford an opportunity for filing a return before allowing the writ application.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents filed a writ application claiming relief for a minimum pay-scale from the respective dates of their initial appointment, which was allowed by the High Court without affording the appellants an opportunity to file a return.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ application without affording the appellants an opportunity to file a return, and therefore set aside all the orders passed by the High Court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ application without affording the appellants an opportunity to file a return.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of affording an opportunity for filing a return before allowing a writ application, and directed the appellants to file their return to the petition within a specified time frame.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ application after the appellants filed their return, within a specified time frame.

JUDGMENT:

1. Leave granted.

2. In our view, this appeal can be disposed of on a very short point. The respondents, Bharat Singh Bhati & Ors. filed a writ application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore claiming relief that a minimum of pay-scale from the respective dates of their initial appointment be paid to them as had been paid to other similarly situated persons and for other incidental reliefs.

3. This writ petition was disposed of by directing payment of the minimum pay-scale from the respective dates of their initial appointment. From the order of the High Court, it would be evident that the High Court had noted that return to the writ petition was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, appellant herein, although, admittedly, no such return was filed.

4. An application for review of the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition of the respondents was filed, which was also rejected. A writ appeal against the original order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowing the writ application was also filed. The said appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh holding that in view of the rejection of the Review Application, the writ appeal could not be entertained.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench of the High Court, this Special Leave Petition has been filed, which was heard on grant of leave in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that return was in fact not filed by the appellants, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ application without affording any opportunity of filing return to the writ application filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, we set aside all the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as in the Review Application and also the order passed in the writ appeal. The appellants shall file their return to the petition within six weeks from the date of supply of a copy of this order to the High Court and the High Court, thereafter, shall dispose of the writ application after giving hearing to the parties within a period of three months from the date of filing the return to the writ application by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top