The aspect of early delivery of judgment order has been particularly dealt with in details by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai, supra. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with a situation when the judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that where a judgment is not pronounced within three months, any of the parties to the case would be permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment and as and when such an application is filed, it shall be listed before the same Bench by which the judgment is reserved for fixing the date of the judgment or passing of appropriate orders. It has also been held that if the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months thereafter, any of the parties to the lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the case and make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. The ratio of this case has also been followed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devang Vora and by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pradeep Sangodker, supra. Though the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai, supra, were in the context of a judgment reserved by a judicial authority and not by a quasi-judicial authority, in view of the fact that this Court has already taken a view that these directions would also be applicable to quasi-judicial authorities and Tribunals respectively would have their application to the instant matter. So, the directions given in the case of Anil Rai, supra, would have to be followed even by the quasi-judicial authorities and parties before the quasi-judicial authorities. Therefore, the procedure, as laid down in clauses (iv) and (v) of paragraph 10, regarding filing of applications with a prayer for early judgment and prayer for making over the matter to some other bench, in this case, to some other authority, was required to be followed by the petitioners. That has not been shown to be done by them. Then the question of causing of prejudice to the petitioners by belated delivery of the judgment would also have to be considered. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, non consideration of the legal submissions by the respondent no. 2 is a prejudice caused to the petitioners. I am not inclined to accept the argument for the reason that the violation of guidelines contained in Standing Order No. 36 having a binding effect upon the petitioners has been established in the inquiry conducted under Section 311 of the Act, 1965 and it has never been the case of the petitioners that they had followed the guidelines and terms and conditions determined by the Municipal Council for exercise of powers by them in contractual matters. As such, there was no question of disregarding the instructions in the Standing Order No.36. There is thus no prejudice caused to the petitioners by belated passing of the impugned order in as much the petitioners have not shown that they had followed the procedure prescribed in Anil Rai, supra.
Print Page
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rahul S/O. Virendra Deshmukh And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
No comments:
Post a Comment