Bombay High Court: Remand Order Not To Be Passed Routinely Or To Fill Up Lacunae In Evidence

The Bombay High Court has held that remand order shouldn't be passed routinely and may be warranted only if the original authority has failed to consider a material document.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 whereby relief was denied to him primarily on the ground that the panchnama, a material piece of documentary evidence, was not properly drawn.

The single bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed, "...The principle is well-settled that an order of remand is not to be passed as a matter of routine, and certainly not merely to fill up lacunae in evidence or to re-do what has already been considered. A remand may be warranted only if the original authority has failed to consider a material document, the appreciation of which requires either a reevaluation of evidence or permitting parties to lead fresh evidence."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Dilip Bodake while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Shreyas P. Barsawade.

Facts of the Case

The finding recorded by the Mamlatdar was that the panchnama did not meet the procedural requirements, and on that basis, relief was refused. The Sub-Divisional Officer, while entertaining the revision application, also concurred with the view that the panchnama was defective. However, instead of evaluating the legal effect and evidentiary value of the said panchnama in the context of the case, and proceeding to adjudicate the revision on its own merits, the revisional authority remitted the matter back to the Mamlatdar, thereby deferring the adjudication.

Reasoning By Court

The Court was of the view that the approach adopted by the Sub Divisional Officer was legally unsustainable as a remand may be warranted only if the original authority has failed to consider a material document which was not the case.

"The revisional authority, having recorded a finding on the defectiveness of the panchnama, was under a legal duty to test the merits of the Mamlatdar’s order in the light of the other evidence on record, and determine whether the decision suffers from perversity or legal infirmity. Once the panchnama was found to be of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification," the Court observed.

It pointed out that the power of remand, when exercised in absence of compelling legal necessity, leads to avoidable delay in the resolution of disputes.

"Courts and quasi-judicial authorities are expected to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication in the interest of justice. Remand should not be directed where the record is sufficient for final disposal and no prejudice is caused," the Court further stated.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Kapil Satish Phalke & Anr vs. The Sub Divisional Officer

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Dilip Bodake

Respondent- Advocate Shreyas P. Barsawade, AGP M. S. Srivastava

Click here to read/ download Order