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.