SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY vs. RANAGHAT SD HOSPITAL

Case Type: Civil Appeal

Date of Judgment: 15-02-2021

Preview image for SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY vs. RANAGHAT SD HOSPITAL

Full Judgment Text

REPORTABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9404/2019 SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.                ….Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.            ….Respondent(s)  O R D E R In the present case, the reasoned order was passed on 20.12.2019   by   the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal Commission   (“National   Commission”   for   short)   in   C.A. No.9404 of 2019. A fresh civil appeal was filed before this Court being C.A. No.6476 of 2020, which has been dismissed vide Order dated 06.3.2020. Signature Not Verified This Court had  vide  Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2021.02.18 16:36:09 IST Reason: Registrar   of   the   National   Commission   to   submit   a   Report 1 stating the number of cases in which reasoned judgments had not been passed, even though the operative order had been pronounced in Court.  By the report dated 27.7.2020, we have been   informed   that   as   on   20.12.2019,   there   were   85   such cases in which the operative order had been pronounced, but reasoned judgments were not delivered so far.  The fact which has been brought to our notice by the Registrar   of   the   Commission   can,   in   no   manner,   be countenanced that between the date of operative portion of the  order   and   the   reasons   are   yet   to   be   provided,   or   the hiatus period is much more than what has been observed to be   the   maximum   time   period   for   even   pronouncement   of reserved judgments.  In    State of Punjab & Ors.      Vs.    Jagdev Singh   Talwandi   1984(1)   SCC   596   in   para   30,   the Constitution Bench of this Court, as far back in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was being adopted   by   the   adjudicating   authorities   including   High Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative 2 part of the orders without supporting reasons. This was later again discussed by this Court in  Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar 2001(7) SCC 318. Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized.   It indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved to challenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation. The afore­mentioned principle has been emphatically restated   by   this   Court   on   several   occasions   including   in Zahira Habibulla M. Sheikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat   [AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 80­82];   & Ors. Mangat Ram  Vs. State of Haryana  [2008(7) SCC 96 paras 5­10];  Ajay Singh   [AIR 2017 & Anr. Etc.  Vs.  State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. SC 310] and more recently in   Balaji Baliram Mupade & (Civil Appeal No. Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 3 3564   of   2020   pronounced   on   29.10.2020)   Oriental  (Civil Appeal No. Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaixhu Xie & Ors. 4022 of 2020 pronounced on 11.12.2020) and   SJVNL Vs. M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021  wherein the delay in delivery of pronounced on 12.02.2021) judgments has been observed to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the problems gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early, and the reasons follow much later, or are not made available for an indefinite period. In   the   instant   case,   the   operative   order   was pronounced   on   26.04.2019,   and   in   the   reasons   disclosed, there is a hiatus period of eight months. Let this Order be placed before the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to look into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practice is   discontinued,   and   the   reasoned   Judgment   is   passed alongwith the operative order. We would like to observe that 4 in all matters where reasons are yet to be delivered, it must be ensured that the same are made available to the litigating parties positively within a period of two months. With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. …………...............J. [INDU MALHOTRA] …………..............J. [AJAY RASTOGI] NEW DELHI; th 15  FEBRUARY, 2021 5