Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2069

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Leela Tiwari – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2026

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

Consistency in judicial pronouncements requires that matters pertaining to the same underlying decision, which have been previously adjudicated by a co-ordinate bench, must follow the same outcome to maintain legal certainty and parity in the administration of justice.

Headnote:(A) Appellate Procedure - Judicial Consistency - Precedence - Where an issue has been previously resolved by a co-ordinate bench in appeals involving identical circumstances arising from the same common judgment, the court adheres to the principle of parity to ensure consistency in adjudication. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a common judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions. It was brought to the notice of the court that identical issues arising from the same common judgment had already been adjudicated upon by a co-ordinate bench in earlier appeals, which were subsequently allowed and the underlying petitions were dismissed.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that counsel for all parties conceded that the present dispute was substantively identical to those previously decided and was, therefore, covered by the earlier ruling. Consequently, the court found no reason to deviate from the established outcome.

Issues: Whether an appeal concerning identical facts and subject matter as a previously decided case by a co-ordinate bench should be resolved in uniformity with the prior ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance of judicial parity for multiple litigations arising from the same dispute is essential. Relying on the outcome of a co-ordinate bench for matters sharing commonality of facts ensures judicial finality and consistency.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. condonation of procedural delay by mutual consent. (Para 1)
2. application of established precedents to identical cases. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. disposal of appeals in terms of previous binding judgments. (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 459 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.

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 12, 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) 2069

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDManoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, JState of Uttarakhand – AppellantVersusLeela Tiwari – RespondentSPECIAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2026

Consistency in judicial pronouncements requires that matters pertaining to the same underlying decision, which have been previously adjudicated by a co-ordinate bench, must follow the same outcome to maintain legal certainty and parity in the administration of justice.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Leela Tiwari – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2026