The necessity of evaluating applicable facts and legal principles when similar prior decisions affect ongoing appeals.

1. The order dated 23-1-2001, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Bihar v. Surendra Prasad is under challenge in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned order without examining the contentions raised in the LPA; the LPA was disposed of simply following the judgment rendered in ( Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar). The LPA filed against the order in the said writ petition is still pending in the High Court for disposal. The learned counsel further submitted that the concession given on behalf of the State in the case of Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar was confined only to the appellants in the said case and the concession was not general in nature so as to apply the same to all the candidates who could subsequently make their claims in subsequent writ petitions. The learned counsel further submitted that the parties cannot wait for a long time and then approach the court to file writ petitions looking to the order made in Babita Prasad aforementioned.

2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order in his arguments. He contended that similar orders were passed in a few writ petitions filed before the High Court. The learned Single Judge passed the order in the writ petitions, based on similar orders passed in other writ petitions and the Division Bench of the High Court, in that view, committed no error taking note of the orders passed in similar other writ petitions and rejecting the appeal.

3. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court should have taken into consideration the facts of the present case. Particularly when the judgment passed in Ajit Kumar Singh case was followed, it was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the facts of Ajit Kumar Singh case and the facts of the present case were similar. It was also necessary for the High Court to examine whether the concession given on behalf of the State in Babita Prasad case aforementioned was confined to the parties to the said decision or it could be extended to others as well. The High Court should have also taken into consideration the effect of delay and laches, if any, on the given facts and circumstances of the case in filing the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents promptly pointed out at this stage that the question of delay and laches was never raised on behalf of the appellants before the High Court. We do not wish to express one way or the other on the several contentions raised before us by the learned counsel on either side. We certainly find it necessary to set aside the impugned order and remit the LPA to the Division Bench of the High Court to dispose of it on merits, taking into consideration the. respective contentions raised. One more reason for us to adopt such course is to avoid conflict of decisions when an LPA against the order passed in Ajit Kumar Singh case is pending before the High Court.

4. In this view and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and LPA is remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal in the light of what is stated above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.