Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2068

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala Rawat – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajeev Singh Bisht, B.S. Parihar
For the Respondents: B.M. Pingal, I.D. Paliwal

When a common judgment is challenged in multiple appeals, judicial consistency demands that identical matters be resolved in alignment with the findings of a co-ordinate bench that has already adjudicated the relevant legal issues in similar proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Appellate Review - Judicial Consistency - When a common judgment is subject to multiple appeals and a co-ordinate bench has already set aside said judgment in similar matters, it is appropriate to follow established precedent to ensure uniformity in judicial outcomes and prevent conflicting decisions. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged a common order passed in a batch of writ petitions. Similar orders passed by the lower court had previously been reviewed by a co-ordinate bench, which allowed those appeals and set aside the earlier order. The responding parties acknowledged that the present matter was legally indistinguishable from those previously decided.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the legal standing of the current appeal was identical to the matters previously adjudicated. Applying the principle of consistency, the court adopted the order passed by the co-ordinate bench.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the current appeal should be decided in adherence to the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate bench in related appeals arising from the same common order.

Ratio Decidendi: When a co-ordinate bench has already addressed the merits of a common judgment in similar proceedings, the principle of consistency requires that subsequent appeals pertaining to the same common order should follow the same outcome, provided the facts and legal questions remain analogous.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. condonation of procedural delay by consent. (Para 1)
2. nature of the subject writ appeal. (Para 2)
3. application of doctrine of precedent to pending appeals. (Para 3 , 4)
4. final allowance of appeal based on precedent. (Para 5 , 6)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026)

1) The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 451 days. Counsel for the private respondents have no objection to condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Delay Condonation application is allowed.

Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant appeal.

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2026

2) The present appeal has been filed against the common judgment and order dated 07.01.2025, passed in batch of writ petitions, the leading one being WPSS No. 2497 of 2024, Pushpa Joshi and others Vs State of Uttarakhand and others .

3) Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that against the same common judgment Special Appeal No. 297 of 2025 and Special Appeal No. 298 of 2025 were filed by the appellants before this Court and the said appeals were allowed by judgment dated 05.12.2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench. The operative part of the judgment and order passed therein is as follows :

“7. In view of the above, and in view of the facts and circumstances and the applicable law being similar to the petition noted supra, the instant appeals also require to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The judgments under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions stand dismissed.

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Accompanying applications if any stand closed.”

4) Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel who appears for private respondent Nos. 1 to 15, very fairly admits that the present appeal is covered by the judgment dated 05.12.2025 in the aforesaid Special Appeals. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. also takes the same stand.

5) In view of the same, the present special appeal is also allowed in same terms as have been quoted above.

6) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2068

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDManoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, JState of Uttarakhand – AppellantVersusShakuntala Rawat – RespondentSPECIAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2026

When a common judgment is challenged in multiple appeals, judicial consistency demands that identical matters be resolved in alignment with the findings of a co-ordinate bench that has already adjudicated the relevant legal issues in similar proceedings.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala Rawat – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2026