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.

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