Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.6022 OF 2012

Hill View Colony & Ors.             ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Nagaland & 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  05.08.2011  passed  by  the  High

Court of Gauhati, Kohima Bench in Writ Appeal (c)

No. 23(K) of 2010 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the

appellants  herein  and  affirmed  the  order  dated

01.09.2010 of the Single Judge  in W.P.(c) No.117(K)

of 2010.   

1

Page 2

2) We need not burden the order by setting out

the facts in detail except to the extent necessary to

appreciate  the  short  controversy  involved  in  the

appeal.

3) Respondent  No.2  herein  (Industrial  Village

Razhuphe,  Dimapur)  filed  a  writ  petition  against

respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the High Court of

Gauhati  (Kohima Bench) and sought the following

reliefs therein:  

“(a) directing the Dimapur Municipal Council, Dimapur, to cancel and/or reject the census record  collected  by  its  staff  from  the Industrial Village Razhuphe, Dimapur and

(b)  direct the respondents, in particular the respondent  No.3,  not  to  accept  the  census record submitted by the Dimapur Municipal Council, in so far as it relates to the census record  collected  from the  industrial  village Razhuphe.”

4) The respondents to the writ petition (State of

Nagaland and other agencies of the State) filed their

counter affidavits and contested the writ petition on

various grounds.  

2

Page 3

5) The learned Single Judge of  the High Court,

by order dated 01.09.2010,  in substance allowed

the writ petition and issued a writ of certiorari and

mandamus  against  the  State  and  its  agencies

(respondents  therein)  in  relation  to  the  subject

matter  of  the writ  petition.  The eventual  direction

issued by the writ Court reads as under:  

“In  the  facts  situation,  the  Extra  Assistant Commissioner  (Gen.)  Charge  Officer  of  the Census, respondent No.3 herein is directed to cancel  the  Census  records  collected  by  the staff  of  the  DMC,  Dimapur  with  a  further direction to conduct Census in the Petitioner village  through  official  enumerators appointed by him.

With the above directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of.”   

6) Appellant  Nos.  1  to  4  herein,  who  were  not

parties to the writ petition and they having come to

know of the aforesaid order of  the writ Court, felt

aggrieved of  the eventual  writs issued by the writ

Court sought leave to file appeal before the Division

Bench  and  challenged  the  legality  and  the

correctness of the order of the writ Court. The leave

3

Page 4

was  granted  and  accordingly  the  appellants  filed

writ appeal.

7) The  Division  Bench,  by  impugned  order,

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the

learned  Single  Judge  giving  rise  to  filing  of  this

appeal  by  way  of  special  leave  by  the  appellants

before this Court.

8) Heard  Dr.  Rajeev  Dhavan,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  appellants  and  Ms.  Vibha  Datta

Makhija and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned senior

counsel for the respondents.

9) Having  heard  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

parties at length and having perused the record of

the case as also the written submissions filed by the

learned counsel as directed, we are inclined to allow

the  appeal  in  part  and while  setting  aside  of  the

impugned order as also of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge restore the writ petition, out of

4

Page 5

which this appeal arises, to its file and request the

writ  Court  to  decide  the  writ  petition  afresh  on

merits in accordance with law.

10) In  substance,  the  issue  involved  in  the  writ

petition  and  carried  to  this  Court  in  the  appeal

arises out of Census Act as also certain State laws

applicable to the State of Nagaland.  The challenge

inter  alia therein is  to orders issued by the State

Authorities in relation to census.  

11) In our considered opinion, the need to remand

the case to the writ Court has occasioned due to the

following reasons as detailed herein:

12)  First,  since  the  appellants  herein  were  not

parties  to  the  original  writ  petition  but  became

parties in appeal for the first time, the writ Court

decided  the  writ  petition  without  taking  into

consideration the stand of the appellants.

5

Page 6

13)  Second,  once  the  Appellate  Court  granted

leave  to  the  appellants  to  file  appeal  thereby

recognizing their locus in the subject matter of the

writ petition then, in our view, instead of deciding

the issues in its appellate jurisdiction, the Appellate

Court should have remanded the case to the writ

Court  for  deciding  the  writ  petition  afresh  after

granting  an  opportunity  to  the  appellants  to  file

their  counter  affidavits  in  answer  to  the  writ

petition. It was, however, not done.

14) Third,  having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the

controversy and various issues raised therein by all

the parties concerned and also keeping in view the

subsequent events which have come into existence

during the pendency of this appeal, we are of the

opinion that  it  would be in the interest of  all  the

parties concerned that the writ Court (Single Judge)

should decide the writ petition afresh.   

6

Page 7

15) We, accordingly, grant liberty to the appellants

to file their counter affidavits in response to the writ

petition  as  respondent  Nos.5  to  9  to  the  writ

petition.  The  writ  petitioner  and  other  original

respondent Nos.1-4 (State and its agencies) are also

granted liberty to amend their pleadings and raise

all  objections  both  on  facts  and  law  by  filing

additional counter affidavit/rejoinders etc.  

16) We,  however,  make  it  clear  that  we  have

refrained  from  recording  any  finding  on  all  the

issues  argued by  the  parties  before  this  Court  in

support of their respective stand which,  inter alia,

included  that  the  writ  petition  is  now  rendered

infructuous  in  the  light  of  certain  subsequent

events.  It  is now for  the writ Court to decide all

such  issues.   The  writ  Court  would,  therefore,

decide the writ petition uninfluenced by any of our

observations.  We request the learned Single Judge

(writ Court) to decide the writ petition expeditiously.

7

Page 8

17) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion  and  the

directions, the appeal is allowed in part.  Impugned

judgment is set aside.

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

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

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

New Delhi; April  21, 2017  

8