Chheeta Ram @ Sita Ram Vs. Ram Lal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- shiv kumar sharma, j.1. none for the parties. instant special appeal has been filed against the order dated december 22, 95 of the learned single judge which reads as under:heard.no case is made out. the writ petition is dismissed.2. their lordships of the supreme court in mp. mittal v. state of haryana : [1985]1scr940 issued direction which are beneficial to the general administration of justice as under (para 6):before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to point out that it would be beneficial to the general administration of justice if in certain cases where the high court disposes of a writ petition in limine it does so by an order incorporating the reasons for such order. where a case is admitted to final hearing, the judgment of the high court disposing of the appeal almost invariably set forth the reasons for its decision. we think it desirable that even when a writ petition is dismissed in limine the high court should set out its reasons, however briefly, for doing so, especially in those cases where the matter in controversy is the subject of judicial examination for the first time and has not been processed earlier by an inferior judicial or quasi-judicial authority. it is of some importance that a party should know from the court of first instance the reasons for an adverse decision received by it, for that promotes acceptance of the judgment and thereby ensures credibility and public confidence in the judicial institution. it must be remembered that the high court exercises original jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution, and it is only appropriate that a petitioner whose writ petition is dismissed in limine should know what are the precise reasons for the adverse order, whether the writ petition has been rejected on the ground of laches or other preliminary ground or on the merits of the controversy, and what are the reasons of the high court thereof. we may add that a brief statement of reasons rendered by the high court when dismissing the writ petition in limine, is of great assistance also this court when the judgment and order of the high court are sought to be brought here by a petition for special leave to appeal. to sum up, we think it desirable that the high court, when dismissing a writ petition in limine, should set forth a brief statement of the reasons for its order instead of disposing of the proceeding by the single word 'dismissed'.3. in fauja singh v. jaspal kaur : (1996)4scc461 , the apex court observed as under:3. the necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its conclusion is too obvious to be reiterated. obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes, or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. the order of the high court dismissing the civil revision petition, in limine, thus, cannot be sustained.4. in hindustan times ltd. v. union of india and ors. : [1998]1scr4 , it was held as under:7. at the outset, we may say that the division bench of the high court of delhi ought to have given reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. as stated in fauja singh v. jaspal kaur on the plainest consideration of justice, the high court should have given reasons. the absence of reasons has deprived the supreme court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the high court to dismiss the matter in limine. it was an unsatisfactory method of disposal.5. testing the impugned order in the light of the law laid down by the apex court, we find that it cannot be sustained, since it has not been supported by any reason.6. as a result of the above discussion we have no option but to remit the case back to the learned single judge for fresh consideration.7. accordingly, the instant special appeal stands allowed and the impugned order of the learned single judge is set aside. the case is remitted back to the learned single judge to decide it afresh.8. the appellant is directed to appear before the learned single judge on february 25, 2008 for seeking further instructions.