Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1986
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 1497 1986 SCR (2)1101
1986 SCC Supl. (3) 696 1986 SCALE (1)796
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 226 and 227 -
Necessity of High Courts to make speaking orders while
dismissing petitions.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner, who had a brilliant record in service,
was reverted on Jan. 4, 1985 from the post of Police
Inspector to that of Police Sub-Inspector with the
endorsement that such reversion would not disqualify him for
being considered for promotion to the post of Police
Inspector in future. He made a detailed representation
contending that his reversion was wholly unjustified. Since
he did not receive any redress of his grievance, he moved
the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by a petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of
reversion as being violative of Art. 311(2) of the
Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition in
limine.
In appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended: (i)
that the reversion of the appellant from the post of
Officiating Police-Inspector to that of Police Sub-Inspector
was by way of punishment and was thus violative of Art.
311(2) of the Constitution; and (ii) that the High Court was
not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine.
Allowing the appeal,
^
HELD: 1. The impugned order passed by the High Court
dismissing the writ petition in limine by the use of a
laconic word "rejected" cannot be sustained. It does not
inspire public confidence in administration of justice if
the High Courts were to reject the writ petitions without
due application of mind even though substantial questions
were raised in the writ petitions. It was not right on the
part of the High Court to have declined to entertain and
decide the
1102
question as to whether the impugned order of reversion was
liable to be struck down as offending against Art.311(2) of
the Constitution. The writ petition did raise an arguable
question and it deserved hearing upon merits. [1104 G-H;
1105 A-B]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
2.1 In a hierarchical system of Courts which exists in
our country, all courts and tribunals including the High
Court exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions owe
it a duty to pass reasoned orders. Therefore, while
dismissing a writ petition summarily, the High Court must
record reasons briefly. A brief statement of reasons would
greatly assist the Supreme Court in understanding the High
Court’s thought process which, in turn facilitates a quick
and satisfactory disposal of Special Leave Petitions. [1105
B-C; E-G]
2.2 The High Courts should understand this Court’s
difficulty in unravelling the reasons for summary dismissal
in the absence of a brief statement of reasons. It would
considerably lighten the task of Supreme Court if the High
Courts while dismissing a writ petition were to indicate in
a few words the contention(s) urged and their views that the
contentions cannot prevail. [1105 G; D]
In the instant case, the Court directed the High Court
to admit the writ petition to its file and dispose it of in
accordance with law. [1106 A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1963 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19th September, 1985
of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1985.
U.R. Lalit, S.V. Deshpande, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S. Ray
for the Appellant.
V.N. Ganpule, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. This is a petition for grant of special leave
under Art. 136 of the Constitution directed against the
1103
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated September
19, 1985 dismising a petition filed by the petitioner under
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the
Additional Inspector General of Police, Bombay dated January
4, 1985 for his reversion from the post of Offg. Police
Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector of Police as being
violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. By the
impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the Writ
Petition in limine just by the use of a laconic word
’rejected’.
The Facts. The petitioner was promoted as Offg. Police
Inspector on May 22, 1983, on the recommendation of the
Selection Board upon reviewing his case. While he was posted
as Police Inspector at Ramtak in 1982, he successfully
handled the difficult situation arising at Kanhan Coal Mines
where there was a quarrel between two unions, namely
I.T.U.C. and I.N.T.U.C. and received a cash prize of Rs. 50
and ’C’ Note from the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur
District (Rural) by order dated October 28, 1983. He also
received several commendations for tactfully handling the
situation at Kamptee on the eve of Dussehra, Muharram,
Ganeshpooja and Bakr-Id festivals in the years 1982 and
1983. During the period from February to March 1983, he was
deputed to Delhi as a Special Security Officer for the
Seventh Non-Aligned Conference and was posted at Vigyan
Bhawan for making security arrangements. All of a sudden on
January 4, 1985, the petitioner was served with the impugned
order of reversion by the Additional Inspector General of
Police, Bombay from the Post of Police Inspector to that of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
Police Sub-Inspector with the endorsement that such
reversion would not disqualify him for being considered for
promotion to the post of Police Inspector in future.
It appears from the return filed by the State
Government in the High Court that this reversion was based
upon the report of the Selection Committee that he was not
fit to be retained as Police Inspector. The recommendation
was based on the Annual Confidential Reports for the years
1982 and 1983 to the effect that the petitioner was given to
heavy drinking and had practically become a physical wreck
and though young he was wholly unfit to hold independent
charge. The adverse entries in the Annual Confidential
Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 were communicated to the
petitioner in December 1984.
1104
The petitioner was given two months’ time to make his
representation against the adverse entries i.e. time till
February 1985.
The petitioner contends that the adverse remarks in his
Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 were
wholly baseless and he accordingly within time prescribed,
made a detailed representation pointing out that his
reversion on the ground of the Annual Confidential Reports
was wholly unjustified. He also annexed with the
representation all the documents which he filed along with
the Writ Petition, showing that the remarks in his Annual
Confidential Reports that he was unfit for service were
uncalled for and prayed that the order of reversion be
stayed till the consideration of his representation. Not
having received any redress of his grievance the petitioner
moved the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court,
however, dismissed the Writ Petition in limine. On a perusal
of the return filed by the State Government in the High
Court, it is apparent that the reversion of the petitioner
was solely based on the recommendation of the Selection
Board which appears to have reviewed his case for retention
on the post of Police Inspector and took into consideration
the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983.
The only contention before us is that the reversion of
the petitioner from the post of Offg. Police Inspector to
that of Police Sub-Inspector was by way of punishment and
was thus violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. It is
urged that the High Court was not justified in dismissing
the Writ Petition in limine.
We refrain from expressing any opinion whether the
impugned order was by way of punishment or not. All that we
wish to say is that we are distressed to find that the
impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ
Petition in limine by the use of a laconic word ’rejected’
cannot be sustained. It does not inspire public confidence
in administration of justice if the High Courts were to
reject the Writ Petitions without due application of mind
even though substantial questions were raised in the Writ
Petitions. It was not right on the part of the High Court to
have declined
1105
to entertain and decide the question as to whether the
impugned order of reversion was liable to be struck down as
offending against Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The Writ
Petition did raise an arguable question and it deserved
hearing upon merits.
In a hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our
country, all courts and tribunals including the High Court
exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions owe it a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
duty to pass reasoned orders. As it is, there is a growing
tendency to file indiscriminate petitions under Art. 136 of
the Constitution and this Court is finding it extremely
difficult to tackle with the backlog of cases because of the
precious time occupied in disposal of Special Leave
Petitions which, we regret to say, are wholly devoid of
substance and of a frivolous nature. It would considerably
lighten the task of this Court if the High Courts while
dismissing a Writ Petition were to indicate in a few words
the contention(s) urged and their views that the
contention(s) cannot prevail. We are distressed to find that
there is a growing tendency in some of the High Courts to
dismiss petitions filed under Art. 226 or 227 of the
Constitution in limine without a speaking order just by the
use of a laconic word ’rejected’ or ’dismissed’.
How often must this Court decree that while dismissing
a Writ Petition summarily, the High Court must record
reasons briefly? We regret that this has to be stated once
again. We trust the High Courts to follow the law laid down
by this Court which, indeed, is obligatory upon them under
Art. 141 of the Constitution. A brief statement of reasons
would greatly assist this Court in understanding the High
Court’s thought process which, in turn facilitates a quick
and satisfactory disposal of Special Leave Petitions. We
understand the difficulty of the High Courts in writing long
orders while dismissing Writ Petitions summarily. The High
Courts should understand our difficulty in unravelling the
reasons for summary dismissal in the absence of a brief
statement of reasons. These are hallmarks of a disciplined
judicial process.
Since, in the instant case, the Writ Petition did
involve a question deserving of careful consideration, we
grant special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution and
set
1106
aside the order of the High Court of summary dismissal. We
direct the High Court to admit the Writ Petition to its file
and dispose it of in accordance with law. The petitioner
shall be entitled to his costs. Costs quantified at
Rs.1,000.
M.L.A. Appeal allowed.
1107