1. Writ petition against the State seeking ad-interim stay regarding land — High Court rejection of stay application. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 826
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Smt. Birwati Chaudhary & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8376 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.21546 of 2017]
Decided On : 20-08-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejecting a relief without justifiable reasons cannot be sustained.
Rejecting a relief without justifiable reasons cannot be sustained.
Subject
Civil Law - Stay of Proceedings
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Rejecting a relief without justifiable reasons – Cannot be sustained. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
In a pending writ petition filed by the appellants herein against the State in the High Court, the writ petitioners (appellants herein) prayed for grant of adinterim stay during the pendency of the writ petition in relation to the subject matter of the land in question.
The High Court declined to grant the adinterim stay.
Finding of the Court:
Rejecting a relief without justifiable reasons cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the High Court's order rejecting the application for ad-interim stay during the pendency of a writ petition. (Para 6 )
3. The High Court provided inadequate reasoning for rejecting the stay, and the vacancy of the land did not justify the rejection given the controversy's nature. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Orders granting or rejecting ad-interim stay must be supported by justifiable reasons based on the facts and the law applicable to the controversy. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — impugned order set aside — case remanded to High Court to decide the ad-interim prayer or the writ petition afresh. (Para 7 , 10 )
6. What is the requirement for a court when granting or rejecting an ad-interim stay?
The court must state justifiable reasons to support either the grant or rejection of a stay, keeping in view the facts and the law applicable to the controversy involved. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Does the fact that the subject land is vacant justify the rejection of a stay application?
No, the observation that land is lying vacant does not in itself justify the rejection of a stay application, particularly when considered against the nature of the controversy involved. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal arises from the interim order dated 10.08.2017 passed 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 the High Court rejected the application for stay filed by the appellants herein.
3) Few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra for the disposal of the appeal, which involves a short question.
4) In a pending writ petition (C.W.P. No.10546/2016) filed by the appellants herein against the State in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the writ petitioners (appellants herein) prayed for grant of adinterim stay during the pendency of the writ petition in relation to the subject matter of the land in question.
5) By impugned order, the High Court declined to grant the adinterim stay observing:
“As the required land is lying vacant, we do not find any reason to grant any stay.”
6) It is against the aforementioned order, the writ petitioners have filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
7) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court to decide the adinterim prayer made by the appellants (writ petitioners) afresh or/and consider disposing of the writ petition itself, as the case may be, in accordance with law.
8) The reason to remand the case has occasioned due to the fact that firstly, no adequate reason is given in the impugned order for not granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justify the rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition.
9) In short, justifiable reason(s) to support either the grant or rejection need(s) to be stated keeping in view the facts and the law applicable to the controversy involved. It is not so found in the impugned order and hence the order of remand is called for to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
10) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court to decide the issue afresh on merits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of our observations made above, which we have refrained to make having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above.
