Case title:
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Himachal Aluminium and Conductors
Date of Order:
2nd August, 2022
Bench:
Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Parties:
Appellant- State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent- Himachal Aluminium and Conductors
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court recently overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision, ruling that the judgement was "utterly incomprehensible."
A panel of Justices DY Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a High Court ruling that accepted the respondent's writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court was unable to comprehend the reasons why the High Court permitted the petitions and set aside the assessment.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Constitution- The section provides that every High Court shall have the ability, within the territory over which it has jurisdiction, to issue directions, orders, or writs to any individual or authority, including, in appropriate situations, any Government, inside those territories.
OVERVIEW
- A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted the respondents' writ petitions as per Article 226 of the Constitution in judgements dated November 27, 2020. The respondents attempted to contest the legitimacy of the appellant's reassessment orders.
- The assessment had been set aside by the High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court gave notice in the Special Leave Petitions on 12 January 2022, 18 April 2022, and 29 April 2022.
- One of the passages of the High Court decision reads as follows:
"However, the afore bar or embargo, against the institution, of the extant writ petition before this Court, where through, annulment(s) of the impugned Annexures, is strived for, is not a rigid or an absolute bar, rather it holds certain well expostulated exceptions, inasmuch as the statutory action, as made by the authority concerned, being evidently ridden with gross and flagrant breaches, of, statutory norms; (a) the alternative remedy available under the statute is not effective but a mere formality; (b) statutory authority concerned not acting in accordance with the apposite statutory provisions; (c) where the statutory authority has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (d) where the statutory authority has resorted to invoke provisions which are repealed; (e) where the statutory authority has passed an order in total violation of principles of natural justice."
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the High Court’s decision was comprehensible enough to be adjudicated on?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The bench stated that the High Court's decision is completely incomprehensible.
- It was further stated that the grounds for the High Court's decision to admit the petitions and set aside the reassessment were not clear from the judgements.
- In April 2017, the Supreme Court overturned another ruling due to the complicated English employed in the decision. The sitting bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta stated, "We shall have to leave it aside since one cannot fathom this."
- Similarly, in the case of State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood[CWP No. 25165 of 2018], the objective of judgements, according to the sitting bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, was stated to explain the foundation and reasoning for its decision not only to attorneys but also to individuals who seek courts for relief.
- In January of this year, a bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha stated that it might have to remand a matter to the High Court with a directive to revise the decision since the language used in the ruling was unclear, provoking the question of whether it was written in Latin.
CONCLUSION
As a result, the appeals were granted. The High Court's challenged judgements were overturned and remanded to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for reconsideration. All of the parties' rights and claims were preserved.
This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has ruled against a Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling for being confusing and nonsensical.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
