Ravindra Nath Vs.
State Bank of India & Ors.  INSC 2201 (17 December 2008)
Non-reportable IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7422 OF
2008 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.17100 of 2007) RAVINDRA NATH .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal is
directed against an order dated 25th of April, 2007 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2457 of 2006 whereby the High Court
had rejected the writ petition only on the ground of delay.
Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and
taking a liberal view of the matter and after considering the materials on
record and the statements made for the delay in filing the writ petition having
been sufficiently explained in the writ petition, we are of the view that the
delay may not be taken to be a ground for rejection of the writ application
simply for two reasons. First, the writ petition was entertained initially by
the High Court and then subsequently it was rejected only on the ground of
delay. Secondly, as we have already noted the delay in filing the writ
application has been sufficiently explained by the appellant. That being the
position, we hold that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the writ
petition on the ground of delay without deciding the same on merits. However,
such restoration of the writ petition to be heard on merits would be subject to
payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents which shall be paid by the
appellant within a period of two months from the date of 2 supply of a copy of
this order to the High Court.
impugned order is set aside. The High Court is now requested to dispose of the writ
petition on merits within three months from the date of depositing or paying
the costs by the appellant to the respondents and after giving hearing to the
parties and after passing a reasoned and speaking order. In the event, the cost
so awarded is not paid or deposited within the period specified hereinabove,
this appeal shall stand dismissed and the order of the High Court shall stand
affirmed. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case,
which shall be decided by the High Court in accordance with law.
observations, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will
be no order as to costs.
( TARUN CHATTERJEE)
( V.S.SIRPURKAR )
Pages: 1 2 3