Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.460 OF 2008

Municipal Board, Sumerpur      ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Kundanmal & Ors.   …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  09.03.2006  passed  by  the  High

Court  of  Judicature  for  Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur  in

D.B. Civil  Special Appeal No. 92 of 2006 whereby

the High Court dismissed the special appeal filed by

the  appellant  herein  and  affirmed  the

judgment/order  dated  02.08.2005  of  the  Single

Judge  in S.B.C.W.P. No.1403 of 2004.   

1

Page 2

2) Facts  of  the  case  need  not  be  mentioned  in

detail except to the extent necessary for the disposal

of this appeal.

3) The appellant - a Municipal Board, Sumerpur

(writ petitioner) filed a writ petition being Civil Writ

No.  1403  of  2004   against  the  respondents

challenging  therein  the  order  dated  30.09.2003

passed by  the  Collector,  Pali  in  Municipal  Appeal

No.03/2001.  The  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court

dismissed the writ petition in limine by order dated

02.08.2005 which reads as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  order  impugned,  Annex.8  has  been passed in compliance of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 15.1.2001 passed inter-parties being Annex.7.  It is not shown, as to how the order, Annex.8 is not in accordance with the directions contained in Annex.7.  In that view of the matter, I do not find  any  ground  to  interfere.   The  writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.”  

2

Page 3

4) The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed writ appeal

before the Division Bench. By impugned order, the

Division Bench dismissed the appeal  in limine. The

impugned order reads as under:

“Having  heard  learned  counsel  for  the appellant  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  no interference is called for in this appeal in the judgment  of  learned  Single  Judge  who  has rightly  exercised  his  discretion  in  not interfering  with  the  order  passed  by  the Collector as the learned counsel has not been able  to  show  how  the  impugned  order  is contrary to direction of Division Bench.

In  essence  learned  counsel  for  the appellant  tried  to  urge  that  the  decision rendered in Hotechad’s  case in the light of which  the  Division  Bench  in  his  earlier decision  has  directed  to  decide  his representation,  was erroneous.   That is  not permissible.”

5) Felt  aggrieved,  the  appellant  (writ  petitioner)

has filed appeal by way of special leave before this

Court.

6) Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned

counsel for the respondents.

3

Page 4

7) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are  constrained  to  allow  the  appeal  in  part  and

while setting aside the impugned order also of the

writ Court, restore the appellant's writ petition to its

file  for  its  decision  on  merits  in  accordance  with

law.  

8) In our considered opinion, the need to remand

the case to the writ Court has occasioned due to the

reason  that  both,  i.e.,  the  writ  Court  and  the

Appellate  Court  did  not  set  out  even  the  factual

controversy nor  dealt  with the submissions urged

by the appellant and nor examined the issues in the

context  of  relevant  provisions  of  the  Act  which

governed the controversy.

9) In our considered view, in order to appreciate

the factual and legal controversy involved in the lis,

the  least  which  is  expected  of  is  that  the  order

which  decides  the  lis between  the  parties  should

contain  the  brief  facts  involved  in  the  case,   the

4

Page 5

grounds on which the action is impugned, the stand

of the parties defending the action, the submissions

of  the  parties  in  support  of  their  stand,  legal

provisions,  if  any,  applicable  to  the  controversy

involved in the lis,  and lastly, the brief reasons as

to why the case of one party deserves acceptance or

rejection, as the case may be.

10)  This enables the superior  Court to examine

the legality of the decision in its proper perspective

in its appellate jurisdiction.  

11) Having  regard  to  the  nature  of  controversy

involved in the case in hand, in our view, the writ

Court should have issued notice of the writ petition

to  the  respondents  and  then  decided  the  writ

petition on merits by reasoned order rather than to

dismiss it in limine.  

12) The Appellate Court too while dismissing the

appeal  in  limine did  not  deal  with  any  of  the

submissions  raised  by  the  appellant  and  nor

assigned  any  reason  much  less  in  detail  thereby

5

Page 6

depriving the Appellate Court to examine the issues

arising in the case in its proper perspective.  

13) It is for these reasons, we cannot concur with

the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below

and consider it proper in the facts of this case to

remand it  to  the  writ  Court  for  deciding  the  writ

petition on merits in accordance with law.  

14) Since we have formed an opinion to remand

the  case,  we  have  refrained  from  recording  any

finding on merits on any of the issues arising in the

case.

15) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds  and  is  accordingly  allowed  in  part.  The

impugned order and the order of the writ Court are

set aside. The writ petition out of which this appeal

arises is restored to its file. The writ Court (Single

Judge)  is  requested to decide the writ  petition on

merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any

of our observations.

6

Page 7

16) Since the matter is quite old, we request the

Single  Judge  to  decide  the  writ  petition

expeditiously.

               …….................................J.

  [R.K. AGRAWAL]             

       …......................................J.                [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; April 21, 2017  

7