- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sumer Singh Jat And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
These appeals, decided by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., arise from multiple final judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at its Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches. The matters include, among others, Sumer Singh Jat v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4137), Namonarayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4140), Omprakash Sewda v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4136), Rakesh Kumar Thalor v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4139), Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4138), Hanuman Singh Godara v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4143), Devpal Charan v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4142), Ganpat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4141), Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4144), Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2163), Karni Dan v. State of Rajasthan (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2165), Jagdish Singh Barath v. State of Rajasthan (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2164), and Bhagirath Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2166).
The appellants had filed intra-court appeals before Division Benches at Jaipur and Jodhpur against an order dated 9-2-2017 (2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4145) and other similar orders passed by a Single Judge in writ petitions. The Division Benches affirmed the Single Judge’s orders and dismissed the appellants’ intra-court appeals. The present appeals were then brought to the Supreme Court by way of special leave. After hearing counsel for both sides, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of the High Court’s dismissal orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the impugned judgments/orders of the Rajasthan High Court Division Benches dismissing the intra-court appeals are sustainable in law.
- Whether dismissal of appeals without assigning reasons, discussing the issues that arose, or addressing the submissions of the parties is legally sustainable.
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 examined the record and determined that the Division Benches of the Rajasthan High Court had dismissed the appellants’ intra-court appeals without assigning reasons. The Court emphasized that there was an absence of any discussion on the issues arising in the cases and no findings on the submissions urged by the parties. Indeed, none of the appellants’ submissions were even mentioned, much less dealt with on their merits.
In these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that it was not possible to affirm the unreasoned dismissal orders. The lack of reasons and analysis by the Division Benches necessitated a remand for fresh consideration on the merits. The Supreme Court explicitly refrained from examining the merits of the underlying controversies, in view of the remand.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeals succeed and are ALLOWED. The impugned judgments/orders of the Division Benches of the Rajasthan High Court are SET ASIDE. The intra-court appeals before the High Court are RESTORED to their respective numbers for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law. The Supreme Court did not enter into the merits of the disputes. The High Court is requested to decide the appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months, and without being influenced by any observations of the Supreme Court.
IMPLICATIONS: The immediate consequence is that the matters return to the Rajasthan High Court for a reasoned adjudication on the merits of the appellants’ intra-court appeals. No broader legal rule or new precedent is articulated; the decision turns on the absence of reasons in the High Court’s dismissal orders and ensures that the parties receive a merits-based, reasoned determination.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.— Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the final judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Sumer Singh Jat v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4137, Namonarayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4140, Omprakash Sewda v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4136, Rakesh Kumar Thalor v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4139, Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4138, judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jodhpur in Hanuman Singh Godara v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4143, Devpal Charan v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4142, Ganpat Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4141, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4144, judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2163, judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jodhpur in Karni Dan v. State of Rajasthan 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2165, Jagdish Singh Barath v. State of Rajasthan 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2164 and Bhagirath Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2166 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein.
2. Few facts need to be mentioned infra for disposal of these appeals.
3. Appellant 1 and several others filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur and Jodhpur against the order dated 9-2-2017 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4145 and other similar orders passed by the Single Judge in the writ petitions. By the impugned judgments/orders, the Division Bench affirmed the orders of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein, which have given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
4. The short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law.
5. Heard Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr Shiv Mangal Sharma, learned AAG for the respondents.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the appeals afresh on merits.
7. The need to remand the case has been occasioned as the Division Bench has not assigned any reason for dismissal of the appeals. In our opinion, in the absence of any discussion on the issues which have arisen in these cases and in the absence of any finding on the submissions urged by the parties, it is not possible to affirm the order. Indeed, none of the submissions urged by the appellants are mentioned much less dealt with either way on the merits of the case.
8. In view of the abovementioned reason, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgments/orders are set aside. The appeals out of which these appeals arise are restored to their respective numbers before the High Court for their fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.
9. Having formed an opinion to remand the case, we have not gone into the merits of the controversy. The High Court will, therefore, decide the appeals afresh on merits without being influenced by any of our observations. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6 months.
Alert