- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Raj Kishore Pandey v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a Principal of “Paramhans Sanskrit Pathshala,” has been seeking payment of salary and allowances from the school management since 1988. After unsuccessful attempts to obtain the arrears administratively, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad requesting a mandamus directing release of the arrears and continued salary payments. Pleadings were completed, and the appellant had succeeded in several interlocutory matters.
On 5 August 2003, the writ petition was listed for hearing but was dismissed for non-prosecution because neither of the appellant’s two counsel appeared. One counsel, Shri R.M. Saggi, had sent an “illness slip,” while the other, Shri S.P. Srivastava, had meanwhile been elevated to the Bench and therefore could not appear. The appellant filed a restoration application explaining these circumstances, but by order dated 2 November 2006 the High Court rejected the application, terming the explanation unsatisfactory. The present appeal challenges both the dismissal for non-prosecution and the refusal to restore the writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution when one counsel was ill and the other had been elevated to the Bench.
- Whether the reasons offered in the restoration application constituted “sufficient cause” warranting revival of the writ petition.
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 Supreme Court characterised the High Court’s approach as “hypertechnical.” It noted that:
- The appellant had in fact engaged two counsel. One was lawfully precluded from appearing due to elevation to the Bench; the other sought an adjournment owing to illness by submitting an illness slip.
- These factual assertions were undisputed, yet the High Court failed to consider them adequately when exercising its discretion on the restoration application.
- While discretion in determining “sufficient cause” belongs to the court, it must be exercised on sound principles aimed at advancing justice, not technicalities. A litigant should ordinarily be afforded a hearing on the merits.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have restored the writ petition and decided it on merits, especially given that the litigation had been pending for nearly two decades.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders dated 5 August 2003 and 2 November 2006, restored the writ petition to the High Court’s file, and directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits within six months of receiving the Supreme Court’s order. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reinstates the appellant’s opportunity to obtain adjudication on the merits of his salary claim and underscores the judiciary’s preference for substantive justice over procedural technicalities. No new legal precedent was expressly established, but the Court reaffirmed the principle that discretion on procedural defaults should be exercised to further justice.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 20552 of 1988 dated 5-8-2003 and the orders passed on Restoration Application No. 216574 of 2005 dated 2-11-2006.
3. By the impugned orders, the Court has rejected the writ petition for non-prosecution and further, has declined to grant the relief sought in the restoration application only on the ground that the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application are not satisfactory.
4. A Principal working in “Paramhans Sanskrit Pathshala” is fighting against the mighty management for payment of his salary and other allowances right from the year 1988. Since all his efforts to pursue the management to distribute the arrears of salary and the current salary due to him (sic failed), he was constrained to approach the Court, inter alia, requesting the Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to release the entire arrears of salary to which he is entitled to and further to continue to pay his salary and other allowances as and when the same became due to him. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits. Pleadings are complete. In the interregnum, several petitions/applications are filed before the High Court by both the parties. The appellant has succeeded in all those interlocutory matters.
5. When the matter was posted before the Court on 5-8-2003, unfortunately for the appellant, his lawyers could not be present before the Court, and, therefore, the Court has rejected the writ petition for non-prosecution on the ground that though one of the learned counsel Shri R.M Saggi has sent his illness slip, the other counsel, whose name appears in the cause-list, was not present before the Court.
6. The appellant coming to know about the dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, had filed restoration application, bringing to the notice of the Court that he had engaged the services of Shri R.M Saggi and Shri S.P Srivastava, learned advocates to prosecute the writ petition. Shri Saggi was unwell on the date when the writ petition was posted for hearing and, therefore, he had sent his illness slip and had requested the Court to accommodate him on account of illness and further, Shri S.P Srivastava, whose name also appeared in the cause-list had been elevated to the Bench of the High Court and, therefore, could not appear as the counsel for the appellant. The explanation offered according to the learned Judges is not satisfactory and, therefore, they have rejected the restoration application. Aggrieved by these two orders, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
7. In our view, the approach of the learned Judges, to say the least is hypertechnical. Admittedly, the appellant had engaged the services of Shri S.P Srivastava and Shri R.M Saggi. Shri Srivastava is elevated to the Bench and, therefore, he could not appear as a counsel for the appellant though his name was shown in the cause-list. The other learned counsel was suffering from a physical ailment. Admittedly, he had sent “illness slip” with the request for adjournment. When these factual assertions were not in dispute, in our opinion, the Court should have allowed the prayer made in the restoration application and should have heard the case on merits, which was pending for the last two decades. It is true that the appellant has to take necessary steps to prosecute the petition by following-up action after filing the writ petition. The appellant had engaged the services of two learned counsel. Unfortunately for him, one was elevated to the Bench and the other was suffering from a physical ailment. All this information was forthcoming in the application filed for restoration. The High Court has not appreciated these facts.
8. In our opinion, whether the applicant has made out sufficient cause or not, in the application filed, the Court is required to look at all the facts pleaded in the application. No doubt, the consideration of the existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with the Court, but such discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and not on mere technicalities. The approach of the Court in such matters should be to advance the cause of justice and not the cause of technicalities. A case, as far as possible, should be decided on merits and the party should not be deprived to get the case examined on the merits.
9. In view of the above, in our opinion, we cannot sustain the impugned orders passed by the High Court, and therefore, the same requires to be set aside and the writ petition requires to be restored. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders. We restore the writ petition on the file of the High Court. We request the High Court to consider the writ petition on merits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to all the parties concerned.
10. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Alert