Division Bench Calling For Writ Petition And Deciding It Along With Writ Appeal Against Principles Of Judicial Propriety: Supreme Court
The Division Bench of the High Court called for and decided the Writ Petition also, while it was considering a Writ Appeal against refusal to grant interim order in the Writ Petition.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a Division Bench cannot decide the Writ Petition along with the Writ Appeal filed against the refusal by the Single Judge to pass an interim order in the Writ Petition, as it is against the basic principles of judicial norms and propriety.
An Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, stating that it decided the original Writ Petition and also the Writ Appeal against refusal to grant interim relief in the Writ Petition.
The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “Having considered the matters, we find grave irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court…Moreover, deciding the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal by the same Court itself goes against the very basic principles of judicial norms and propriety. Here, the same Court has decided the original Writ Petition and also, the Writ Appeal against the said order in the Writ Petition, which is totally impermissible in law and cannot be justified on any ground.”
Advocate Ranjeet Singh Chauhan represented the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate Pratap Narayan Sanghi represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The Appellants contended that the Division Bench could not have called for the Writ Petition and heard it along with the Writ Appeal. It was also submitted that the Writ Appeal was only against the refusal to grant interim order and could not have expanded the scope to decide the main merits of the Writ Petition itself, that too, by calling it before the Court, which has passed the judgment.
Further, the Appellants contended that the power of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court has also been breached, as no matter can be suo motu called for by any Court except by the permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of that High Court.
Court’s Observation
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that there was a grave irregularity in the judgment passed by the High Court.
The Court said, “Moreover, deciding the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal by the same Court itself goes against the very basic principles of judicial norms and propriety.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the Writ Petition and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank V. The Union of India & Ors
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Ranjeet Singh Chauhan, Uma Devi, Geeta Verma, Aparna Jha, AOR
Respondents: Senior Advocate Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Advocates Akhilesh Loya, Krishna Kumar Singh (AOR)
