1. Challenge to a High Court order dismissing a petition against a Tribunal's judgment without considering the grounds of challenge. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1300
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
State of Orissa & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Prasanta Kumar Swain – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 15321 of 2020)
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Important Points
The duty of the High Court to apply its mind to the sustainability of the judgment of the Tribunal on facts and law, and the requirement for expeditious disposal of proceedings.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
Headnote
ORDER - Challenge to Judgment of Orissa Administrative Tribunal - No. 163 of 2008 - The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the proceedings back for a fresh decision. The High Court was requested to endeavor an expeditious disposal within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Orissa challenged the judgment and order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 163 of 2008. The High Court dismissed the petition without proper consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's dismissal of the petition was found to be inappropriate and lacking proper application of mind. The court set aside the judgment and remitted the proceedings for a fresh decision, requesting expeditious disposal.
Issues: Inappropriate disposal of substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, lack of application of mind by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court is duty bound to apply its mind to whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable on facts and law. Inappropriate disposal of a substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution warrants setting aside the judgment and remitting the proceedings for a fresh decision.
Final Decision: The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the proceedings were remitted for a fresh decision. The High Court was requested to endeavor an expeditious disposal within three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Advocate, Ms. Snigdha Dash, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Advocate, Ms. Snigdha Dash, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. State challenged a Tribunal's order; High Court dismissed the petition citing the opposite party's length of service. (Para 2 )
3. High Court failed to apply its mind to the grounds of challenge and inappropriately disposed of a substantive Article 226 petition. (Para 3 )
4. High Court is duty-bound to apply its mind to whether a Tribunal's judgment is sustainable on facts and law under Article 226. (Para 3 )
5. High Court order set aside and proceedings remitted for fresh disposal with a request for expeditious resolution. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the duty of a High Court when disposing of a substantive petition under Article 226 challenging a Tribunal's order?
The High Court is duty-bound to apply its mind to the grounds of challenge and the submissions to determine whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable on facts and law. (Para 3 )
7. Is it appropriate for a High Court to dismiss a substantive petition by stating that the decision will not be treated as a precedent?
No, such a manner of disposal is inappropriate as it indicates a lack of application of mind to the substantive grounds of the challenge. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. While considering a challenge by the State of Orissa to the judgment and order dated 14 November 2012 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal [1] in OA No 163 of 2008, the High Court, by its order dated 14 February 2019, dismissed the petition with the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA No. 163 of 2008.
Taking into consideration the opposite party is working for a period of three decades, it will not be appropriate for us to disturb the findings of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, this will not be treated as precedent."
[1] "Tribunal"
3. Ex facie, there has been no application of mind by the High Court to the grounds of challenge or to the submissions. In fact, the concluding line of the order of the High Court indicates that the decision will not be treated as a precedent. This was an inappropriate manner of disposing of a substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution since the High Court is duty bound to apply its mind to whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable on facts and law.
4. In the above background, we are constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the proceedings back for a fresh decision. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14 February 2019 is set aside and Writ Petition (C) No 6658 of 2014 is restored to the file of the High Court of Orissa for fresh disposal.
5. However, having regard to the fact that the proceedings before the Tribunal were instituted in 2008, we request the High Court to endeavour an expeditious disposal, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
