STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.versusMAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA

                         [2022] 3 S.C.R. 79                             79


              STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.                               A
                                 v.
                  MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2905 of 2022)
                          APRIL 19, 2022                                B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
      Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 – High Court disposed
of writ petition without deciding it on merits and directed the State
to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal which was under
                                                                        C
challenge before it – On appeal by State, held: The High Court
disposed of the writ petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner,
which is unsustainable – Order of the High Court is bereft of
reasoning – When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the
writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to deal
with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order – Matter         D
remanded to High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on
merits – Practice and Procedure.
      Remanding the matter to High Court, the Court
       HELD:1. From the writ petition produced on record, it
appears that the order passed by the Tribunal was challenged on         E
a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the writ
petition has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court
on merits. There is no discussion at all on any of the grounds
raised in the writ petition. The High Court disposed of the writ
petition in a most cavalier and cursory manner, which is                F
unsustainable. The High Court was required to decide and dispose
of the writ petition on merits and consider the legality and
correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. [Para 2.1]
[81-G; 82-B]
      2. The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and          G
disposed of the writ petition without deciding the writ petition on
merits cannot be appreciated at all. When a number of issues/
grounds were raised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast
upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to
pass a reasoned order. [Para 2.2][82-C]
                                                                        H
                                 79
80            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A          3. The order of the High Court is bereft of reasoning.
     Diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought
     to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a
     clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the
     relevant documents. The matter is remanded to the High
     Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits. [Paras 3,
B
     4][83-D-E]
           Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of
           Income Tax 4 Circle 25(3) & Ors.(Civil Appeal
           No.2200/2022); Central Board of Trustees v. Indore
           Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443 : [2018]
C          7 SCR 1130; and Union Public Service Commission v.
           Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 516 –
           relied on.
                              Case Law Reference
     [2018] 7 SCR 1130                 Para 2.3                  relied on
D
     (2021) 4 SCC 516                  Para 2.4                  relied on
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2905
     of 2022.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2022 of the High Court
E    of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSB No.09 of 2022.
          Kaushal Gautam AAG, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Ms. Namita
     Choudhary, Advs. for the Appellants.
           Ashok Singh, Shree Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
           M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
     orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at
     Nainital in WPSB No. 9/2022, by which the High Court has disposed of
     the said writ petition without deciding the writ petition on merits and has
G    directed the Department to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal
     which was under challenge before it, the State has preferred the present
     appeal.
            2. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Uttarakhand
     Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun (for short “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition
H
 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. v. MAYAN PAL SINGH                               81
              VERMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

No.104/DB/2009, by which the Tribunal directed the Department to ignore       A
the un-communicated “Uttam” entries in the ACRs while considering
the case of the original applicant – private respondent herein for his
promotion to the post of the Chief Engineer Level-2 by the reviewed
ACP, the State of Uttarakhand had preferred the writ petition before the
High Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High
                                                                              B
Court has disposed of the said writ petition without deciding the writ
petition on merits and without expressing anything on the legality and
validity of the order passed by the Tribunal and has directed the State to
comply with the order passed by the Tribunal by observing that though
Tribunal had passed an order on 15th September, 2021, no review ACP
has been constituted. There is no discussion at all by the High Court on      C
the merits of the order passed by the Tribunal, which was under challenge
before it. The impugned order reads as under: -
             “The matter is taken up through virtual hearing.
            Heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the
      appellant.                                                              D

             In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by
      the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim
      Petition No. 104/DB/2009 directing the opposite party to ignore
      the un-communicated ‘’Uttam” entries in the ACRs while
      considering the case of the private respondent for his promotion        E
      to the post of the Chief Engineer level-2 by the reviewed ACP. It
      is further directed that the respondent-Department may hold the
      reviewed ACP within three months from the date representation
      of the certified copy of this order. This Order has been passed on
      15thSeptember, 2021 till then no review ACP has been constituted.       F
      Let that order passed by the Tribunal be complied within 21 days
      from today.
             With such observation, thewrit application is disposed of.”
       2.1 From the writ petition produced on record, it appears that the
order passed by the Tribunal was challenged on a number of grounds.           G
None of the grounds raised in the writ petition has beendealt with and/or
considered by the High Court on merits. There is no discussion at all on
any of the grounds raised in the writ petition. The Division Bench of the
High Court has disposed of the writ petition in a most cavalier and cursory
manner, which is unsustainable. The High Court has disposed of the writ
                                                                              H
82             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A    petition without deciding the writ petition on merits and has directed the
     Department to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal solely by
     observing that the order has been passed on 15th September, 2021 and
     till date no review ACP has been constituted. However, the High Court
     ought to have noted that the order passed by the Tribunal was under
     challenge before it and therefore, the High Court was required to decide
B
     and dispose of the writ petition on merits and consider the legality and
     correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal.
             2.2 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and
     disposedof the writ petitionwithout deciding the writ petition on merits
     cannot be appreciated at all. When a number of issues/grounds were
C    raised in the writ petition, there was the duty cast upon the High Court to
     deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. In the recent
     decision in the case of Vishal Ashwin Patel Vs. Assistant
     Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) & Ors. (Civil Appeal
     No. 2200/2022), it was observed by this Court that when the Constitution
D    confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the duty
     of the High Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the High
     Courts would be failing to perform its duty if relief is refused without
     adequate reasons. It is further observed that in this case, the High Court
     in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was
     required to have independently considered the legality and validity of the
E    order passed by the Tribunal which was under challenge before it. Neither
     any submission on merits is recorded nor is there any discussion on the
     merits of the matter on the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no
     application of mind at all by the High Court on merits of the order passed
     by the Tribunal. It can be seen that the High Court has failed to exercise
F    its jurisdiction vested in it while exercising the powers under Article 226/
     227 of the Constitution of India.
             2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order, in
     the case of Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore Composite
     Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443, it was observed and held by this
     Court thatthe courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which
G    must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to
     the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties,
     the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in
     support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by
     the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It was
H    further observed in the said decision that an order bereft of reasoning
  STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. v. MAYAN PAL SINGH                                83
               VERMA [M. R. SHAH, J.]

causes prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know the            A
reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost.
       2.4 In a recent decision in the case of Union Public Service
Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC
516, while emphasising that reasons ought to be given by the High Court
while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it      B
was observed and held by this Court that the reasons constitute the soul
of judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a
defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings
legitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed that though statistics of
disposal of cases is important, ofa higher value,is the intrinsic content
and of a quality judgment. It is further observedthat in exercise of powers     C
under Article 226 the courts require to independently consider the issues
involved.
       3. Applying the law laid by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to
the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Court
has disposed of the writ petition, in the interest ofsobriety, we may only      D
note that the order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/
raisedby the parties which ought to have been examined by the High
Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded
upon analysing the relevant documents.
       4. Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the order             E
has been passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand
the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on
merits, we do so in light of the aforesaid observations.
       5. In light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the present appeal
and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand
the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ        F
petition afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view our observations
made supra. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from
making any observation on the merits of the controversy, having formed
an opinion to remand the case to the High Court only for the reasons
mentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writ               G
petition, bearing in mind our observations made above and strictly in
accordance with law. With the above directions, the present appeal is
accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the High Court as aforesaid. No costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                    Matter remanded back.   H