State Of Rajasthan v. Gopal Singh .

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent, a Police Constable, was dismissed from service on certain charges. He challenged the dismissal by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which was heard and dismissed by a Division Bench (two Judges) by judgment and order dated 1-2-1989. Thereafter, the delinquent filed a review application. The review was heard by one of the Judges who had been part of the original Division Bench, apparently because the other Judge was not available. That Single Judge allowed the review and reversed the earlier dismissal of the writ petition.

The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court followed the proper procedure for hearing the review application under the relevant High Court Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under Rule 64 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 read with Rule 5 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a review application arising from a Division Bench decision could validly be heard and decided by a Single Judge who was a member of the original Division Bench.
2. Whether the review order reversing the Division Bench’s earlier decision was liable to be set aside due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for constitution of the review Bench.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the writ petition had originally been decided by a Division Bench of two Judges. When a review application was later filed, the proper course in the contingency that one of the original Judges was not available was governed by Rule 64 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952. Under that Rule, the review application ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice, who, with due regard to Rule 5 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and dispose of the review.

In the case at hand, that mandated procedure was not followed. Instead, one of the Judges who had constituted the original Division Bench exercised review jurisdiction alone and reversed the Division Bench’s earlier order. The Court emphasized that this effectively resulted in a matter that would ordinarily be decided by a Division Bench being disposed of by a Single Judge, which was “clearly” inconsistent with Rule 64 read with Rule 5 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Holding and Implications

ORDER IN REVIEW SET ASIDE; MATTER REMITTED; APPEAL ALLOWED.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s review order and remitted the matter to the High Court with directions that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Bench of two Judges to dispose of the review petition. The direct effect is that the review application must be reheard by a properly constituted two-Judge Bench. The Court made no order as to costs and did not articulate any broader implications or new precedent beyond enforcing compliance with the stated procedural rules.