Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 212
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJIB BANERJEE & SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
The Union of India, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Pondicherry & Others – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Cricket Association of Pondicherry (Reg. No. 178 of 2003), Rep. by its Honorary Secretary V. Chandran – Respondents
W.A. No. 261 of 2021
Decided On : 04-02-2021
For the Appellants : N. Mala, Govt. Pleader
For the Respondent:Sathish Parasaran, S.C., B. Balavijayan, Advocate
The duty to supplant reasons where none exists to prevent prejudice to a deserving litigant and the court's discretion to uphold an interim order based on sufficient grounds.
Headnote:
Reasons - Interim Order - The court upheld an interim order despite the lack of reasons, emphasizing that a deserving party should not be prejudiced by the failure of the court to provide reasons. The court also highlighted the drastic executive order in disregard of natural justice, which led to the stay of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against an interim order of December 12, 2020, which appeared unjustified due to the lack of reasons. The respondent-writ petitioner referred to an executive order requiring an FIR to be registered for alleged trespassing into government lands and discontinuation of electricity connection to a cricket ground without notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient basis for the impugned order and upheld it, emphasizing the duty to supplant reasons where none exists to prevent prejudice to a deserving litigant. The appellants were given liberty to apply for vacating the order before another Division Bench.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of reasons in the interim order, the drastic executive order disregarding natural justice, and the grounds urged by the appellants to suggest that the impugned order cannot continue to operate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to supplant reasons where none exists to prevent prejudice to a deserving litigant and found that there was sufficient basis for the impugned order to be made.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs, and the matter was closed. The observations made were only prima facie to sustain an ad-interim order.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.12.2020 made in WMP Nos.23319 and 23321 of 2020 in W.P.No.18763 of 2020.)
1. The appeal is directed against an interim order of December 12, 2020.
2. At first blush, the order impugned appears to be unjustified since it does not disclose any reasons. However, merely because a Court has failed to give reasons in support of an order in favour of a deserving party would not imply that such party cannot be heard to sustain the order on justifiable grounds.
3. The respondent-writ petitioner refers to an executive order passed on November 12, 2020, which is extracted at page 52 of the appeal papers. It appears that the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry required an FIR to be registered for the writ petitioner having allegedly trespassed into government lands and water bodies. Whether or not there may have been sufficient basis for lodging the FIR, it appears that the Lieutenant Governor directed the perceived violator to stop further activities at the premises and in aid of such direction, the electricity connection to a cricket ground was discontinued without so much as a by-your-leave or notice to the persons affected thereby.
4. Such a drastic executive order in flagrant disregard of the principles of natural justice had to be stayed for the mere asking. In the light of there being such ground to sustain the impugned order, the Appellate Court is duty-bound to supplant reasons where none exists, so that a deserving litigant is not prejudiced by any failure on the part of the Court of first instance.
5. Prima facie, there appears to have been sufficient basis for the impugned order to have been made. In such circumstances, such order cannot be interfered with at this stage.
6. However, to the extent that the appellants herein urge other grounds to suggest that the impugned order cannot continue to operate and since the matter is now before another Division Bench, liberty is given to the appellants to apply for vacating the order impugned dated December 12, 2020 before such Bench, for such Bench to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that the observations herein are only prima facie to sustain an ad-interim order.
8. In view of the limited scope of the appeal, W.A.No.261 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs. As a consequence, CMP No.1089 of 2021 is closed.
