Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 80
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.
SUNANDA MAHENDRA GAIKWAD - Appellants.
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 764 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5325/2011)
Decided On : 22-1-2013.
Importance of considering factual and legal controversies in disposing of writ petitions
Headnote:
Non-Speaking Order - Writ Petition - The court set aside a non-speaking order passed by the High Court and remanded the matter back for consideration on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court passed a non-speaking order disposing of a writ petition without considering the factual or legal controversy involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the impugned order to be non-sustainable in law and set it aside, remanding the matter back to the High Court for consideration on merits. The appellant was also permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit before the High Court.
Issues: Non-speaking order, consideration of factual and legal controversy, opportunity to file rejoinder affidavit
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering both factual and legal controversies in disposing of writ petitions and allowed the appellant the opportunity to file a rejoinder affidavit.
Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for consideration on merits. The appellant was permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit, and the hearing of the writ petition was directed to be expedited.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court clearly shows that it is a non-speaking order. The writ petition has been disposed of in a perfunctory manner, without considering either the factual or the legal controversy involved. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. On this short ground alone, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for consideration of the writ petition on merits.
4. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that he did not have the opportunity to file rejoinder affidavit before the High Court. If that be so, the appellant may be permitted to file rejoinder affidavit before the High Court and thereafter the writ petition be set down for final disposal. Hearing of the writ petition also be expedited.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.
