1. Election petition — Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of petition — Oral pronouncement of result without a reasoned order. (Para 3 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1658
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
K. Madan Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6972 of 2022 @ SLP (C) No. 17247 of 2022 @ SLP (C) Diary No. 28749 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Advocates appeared:
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Advocate, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Monalisa Kosaria, Advocate, Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocate, Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Advocate, Mr. Srinivas Rao, Advocate, Mr. N. Manohar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Advocate, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Monalisa Kosaria, Advocate, Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocate, Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Advocate, Mr. Srinivas Rao, Advocate, Mr. N. Manohar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of expeditious proceedings and the need for reasoned judgments, especially in time-sensitive matters like election petitions.
Headnote:
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Delay in Pronouncement of Order - Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of 'State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi' reported in (1984) 1 SCC 596; and 'Anil Rai v. State of Bihar' reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an Election Petition in the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') was taken up for consideration after a considerable delay, and the order was pronounced on 15.06.2022, but the reasoned order was not available to the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay in pronouncing the order and the unavailability of the reasoned order were unacceptable, especially in a time-sensitive matter like an election petition.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in pronouncing the order and the unavailability of the reasoned order, which affected the appellant's right to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings in election petitions and the importance of providing reasoned judgments to parties. It cited the Constitution Bench decision in 'State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi' and 'Anil Rai v. State of Bihar' to highlight the significance of pronouncing reasoned judgments and the impact of delays on the parties' rights.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the matter for re-consideration. It directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary orders and scheduled a date for the parties to appear before the Chief Justice.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks setting aside of order for lack of reasons — Respondent argues statutory appeal availability and that the court's act should not prejudice the party. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Election petitions are time-sensitive — Pronouncing results without reasoned judgments hinders the right to appeal and creates procedural deadlock. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 )
4. A judicial order pronounced without reasons, especially in time-sensitive litigation, cannot be sustained as it denies the party the ability to effectively challenge it. (Para 16 , 18 , 20 , 22 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Matter restored for reconsideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 23 , 24 , 27 )
6. What is the legal effect of a court pronouncing a final order without a reasoned judgment?
It creates serious difficulties for the aggrieved party and higher courts, as the lack of reasoning makes it difficult to implement the order or allow a challenge, often leading to stays pending the delivery of the reasoned judgment. (Para 16 )
7. How does the time-sensitive nature of election petitions affect the requirement for reasoned orders?
Given the statutory requirement for expeditious proceedings under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, parties cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for reasons, making the absence of a reasoned order particularly unacceptable. (Para 14 , 20 )
8. Can a party be relegated to a statutory appeal if the order being appealed lacks reasons?
No, because a statutory appeal on questions of law or fact becomes an empty formality if the High Court's determination of those questions is not available to the parties. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - The applications seeking exemption from filing the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 and filing the petition without the impugned order (I.A. No. 136063 of 2022 and I.A. No. 136061 of 2021) are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. In this appeal, essentially the grievance projected before us is that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') moved in the Election Petition filed by the present appellant in the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad, was taken up for consideration after a considerable delay and, after a prolonged hearing, ultimately, the order was pronounced on 15.06.2022, purportedly allowing the application and rejecting the election petition filed by the present appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing the application is not available as yet.
4. On the matter being taken up for consideration, learned senior counsel has appeared for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No. 1 in caveat.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent that respondent Nos. 15 and 16 arrayed in this appeal were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties by order passed by the High Court on 17.02.2020. The submissions are taken note of. Even otherwise, looking to the subject matter of this appeal, service of notice on other respondents does not appear necessary and stands dispensed with.
6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.
7. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to the background aspects relating to the proceedings in the election petition and has also referred to the fact that in view of the delay caused, the appellant had earlier approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 4518 of 2021, where this Court granted liberty to the appellant to make a request before the Chief Justice of the High Court in its order dated 26.03.2021.
8. It has been pointed out that, after the said order dated 26.03.2021 and a request having been made to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, the matter was placed before another Hon'ble Judge and was proceeded further but then, hearing on the application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC itself took a long time with several dates of hearing; the order was reserved on 22.12.2021; the parties filed written submissions in the first week of January, 2022; and then, the matter was listed again on 01.04.2022 and was re-reserved. It is pointed out that ultimately, the order was orally pronounced by the Hon'ble Judge on 15.06.2022 but, that had only been the pronouncement of the result and no reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It has also been submitted that even after more than three months, the reasoned order is still not available to the parties.
9. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel has particularly referred to paragraph 10(v) of decision of this Court in the case of "Anil Rai v. State of Bihar" reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318; and paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of "State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi" reported in (1984) 1 SCC 596 while submitting that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with for want of reasons.
10. Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has, in the first place, submitted that in the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act of 1951'), particularly Section 116A thereof, an appeal lies against an order passed by the High Court and a properly constituted appeal having not been preferred, the matter does not require consideration by way of an appeal by special leave. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has also referred to the decisions aforesaid, and while relying on paragraph 2 in the case of Anil Rai (supra), has argued that on the fundamental maxim actus curiae neminem gravab
