Back
1975 Supreme(HP) 13
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.S.PATHAK,CHET RAM THAKUR
DEVINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P.THROUGH THE SECRETARY ELECTION DEPT.GOVT.OF H.P. - Respondent
C. M. P. No. 246 of 1974 in L. P. A. No. 5 of 1974
Decided On : 05/13/1975
Chhabil Dass. Advocate, for Appellants:B. Sita Ram. Advocate General and H.S. Thakur, for Respondents.
A Court has inherent power to stay the execution or suspend the operation of an order made by it, subject to certain limitations, including those imposed by statute. The inherent power should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily, but only ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.
Headnote:
INHERENT JURISDICTION - STAY OF EXECUTION - WRIT PETITION - LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - JURISDICTION OF SINGLE JUDGE TO ENTERTAIN STAY APPLICATION - COURT'S INHERENT POWER TO STAY EXECUTION OR SUSPEND OPERATION OF ITS OWN ORDER - LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was allowed by a single judge, directing the State and the Chief Electoral Officer to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Election Department and not to revert them. An appeal was filed against the order in the Letters Patent Appeal, and a stay application was made in the appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal came up for admission before a Bench of two judges, one of whom declared that he would not like to be a member of the Bench hearing the appeal. The appeal could not be listed before a differently constituted Bench due to the unavailability of judges. The appellants prayed that the stay application be listed before the single judge who had disposed of the writ petition. The single judge referred the question of his jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application to a larger Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the single judge had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application. The Court observed that the application related to the consequences of the relief granted by the single judge on the writ petition and bore direct nexus to the jurisdiction already exercised by him. The Court further held that a Court has inherent power to stay the execution or suspend the operation of an order made by it, subject to certain limitations, including those imposed by statute. The Court also held that the inherent power should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily, but only ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the single judge had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application. 2. Whether a Court has inherent power to stay the execution or suspend the operation of an order made by it.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the single judge had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application because: (a) the application related to the consequences of the relief granted by the single judge on the writ petition and bore direct nexus to the jurisdiction already exercised by him; (b) the appellate jurisdiction was not available due to the unavailability of judges; and (c) there was good reason for invoking the inherent powers of the single judge. 2. The Court held that a Court has inherent power to stay the execution or suspend the operation of an order made by it, subject to certain limitations, including those imposed by statute. The Court observed that the inherent power should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily, but only ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.
Final Decision: The Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, holding that the single judge had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application.
R. S. Pathak, C. J.:- The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Bench:- "Whether this Court which has passed the judgment which is challenged in the L. P. A. by the affected respondents is competent to entertain and hear the stay application against its own orders ?"
2. A writ petition was decided by my brother Thakur as a single Judge. He allowed the petition and directed the State and the Chief Electoral Officer to treat the petitioners as regular employees of the Election Department and not to revert them. Against his order a Letters Patent Appeal has been filed in this Court and in that appeal the present application has been made for staying the operation of the order allowing the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal came on for admission before myself and D. B. Lal. J. The latter declared that he would not like to be a member of the Bench hearing the appeal and accordingly an order was made that the case be listed before a Bench of which he was not a member. This Court as presently constituted consists of the Chief Justice and two Judges only and it is not possible in the circumstances that the appeal be listed before a differently constituted Bench. In the circumstances, the appellants prayed that the stay application be listed before my brother Thakur as the single Judge who had disposed of the writ petition. Doubting whether he had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the stay application my learned brother has referred the point to a larger Bench. And that is how this matter is before us.
3. I think it to be beyond dispute that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in the matter of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principles on which it will exercise its inherent powers are well settled. They cannot be exercised where it would be inconsistent with or opposed to provisions of the statutory law of procedure or relate to matters on which such statutory law can be said to be exhaustive They may be exercised wherever justice equity and good conscience require a Court to act. The Courts in India are not only Courts of Law but also Courts of Equity. Every Court administers justice in accordance with law. But wherever the law is silent a Court will act ex-debito justitiae in consummation of the purpose for which it exists. Some of the cases in which it has been recognised that the Court has inherent power are set out in Hukum Chand v. Kamalanand. (1906) ILR 33 Cal 927 and further instances are mentioned in Nand Kishore v. Ram Golam, (1913) ILR 40 Cal 955.
4. Counsel for the respondent contends that the learned Single Judge having disposed of the writ petition is not seized of any case in which an application for interim relief can be entertained and on that ground he is not competent to pass any orders on the present stay application. It is difficult to accept the contention. My learned brother is certainly seized of a proceeding related to the writ petition disposed of by him. It is an application concerned with the consequences of the relief granted by him on the writ petition. It bears direct nexus to the jurisdiction already exercised by him. In my opinion subject to any limitations imposed by the statute law a Court is entitled to pass all incidental and ancillary orders in relation to a case already disposed of by the Court and the inherent power extends, as I shall presently attempt to show. To making an order in appropriate cases staying the execution or suspending the operation of an order disposing of the writ petition. So long as the inherent power is exercised subject to the well accepted limitations already mentioned no objection can be taken. It has been said that when the Court disposes of a case it becomes functus officio. Subject to what has been said above there can be no dispute with that proposition. Truly applied however, what that proposition implies is that the Court cannot re-open the case and dispose it of afresh.
