Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 979 - SC - Indian LawsViolation of principles of natural justice - Non-reasoned order of High Court - completely indefensible - Fixation of seniority list - Power of the Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ('Constitution') - HELD THAT:- The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. Thus, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
|