Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Hemlata Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of previous hearings and issues raised. (Para 1) |
| 2. responses and stance of the parties regarding the previous judgment. (Para 2) |
| 3. court’s order to set aside previous judgment and implement rajasthan court's ruling. (Para 3) |
| 4. final disposition of the writ petition. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL)
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. On the previous date i.e., 04.10.2021, the following had been recorded by us:-
" 1. Counsel for the respondents seek accommodation in the matter to obtain instructions as to, whether the issue raised in the instant writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 22.02.2021, passed by the Rajasthan High Court, in W.P.(C.) No.20910/2019; an aspect, which is, also referred to, in our order dated 27.08.2021.
2.We may also point out that, Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks to place reliance on paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondents, to demonstrate that, even according to the respondents, the issue raised in the instant petition was identical to the one, which was raised before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High court.
2.1. I
Court upheld the implementation of a prior judgment, determining that similar cases should not require remittal to the Tribunal, thereby ensuring justice through efficiency.
The court has the authority to set aside an impugned order and direct the implementation of a judgment from another court if the circumstances warrant it.
Court mandates compliance with Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action for Scheduled Castes, emphasizing the need for quantifiable data on backwardness.
The court emphasized adherence to judicial precedents in administrative inquiries and recognized a respondent's right to pursue legal remedies following inquiry conclusions.
The court emphasized that dismissing a case without merit-based reasoning is improper, necessitating remand for a fresh adjudication.
Tribunals must provide reasoned judgments when closing cases; failure to do so invalidates their orders, necessitating further adjudication.
The court mandates the Tribunal to address pending applications promptly to ensure effective relief and maintain status quo for affected parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
