2000 JTR(SC) 975
2000 8 JT 263 ; 2001 1 MLJ 8 ; 2000 7 SCC 521 ; 2000 7 Supreme 141
2000(7) Supreme 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha, Mrs. Ruma Pal and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Council for Indian School Cert. Exam. -Appellant
versus
Isha Mittal & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3248 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4738 of 2000)
Decided on 5-5-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
It is obligation of High Court to decide the matters before it in accordance with law and consideration of equity cannot prevail and do not permit High Court to pass an order contrary to law.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.226
(A) The Special Leave Petition is governed by Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which provides the apex court with discretionary jurisdiction to grant or deny leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The petition challenges an order passed in an appeal against interim orders on a writ petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The court examines whether the High Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, correctly exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, emphasizing that where law is in favor of the appellant, considerations of equity cannot override legal obligation.
(B) The core legal principles include the discretionary nature of Article 136 relief, the obligation of the High Court to decide matters according to law, the limited scope of interference with interim orders, and the principle that equity cannot prevail over established law. The case also underscores the importance of not creating a precedent in isolated decisions and the expeditious disposal of writ petitions.
Facts of the case:
An interim order was passed by the High Court in an appeal filed against a writ petition, granting relief that could have been granted finally. The Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court sought to set aside this interim order and restore the Special Appeal to the High Court for reconsideration, arguing that the career of the student would be adversely affected by the interim order and that the relief should have been final.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court observed that while the relief could have been granted finally, the interim order had already placed the matter before the High Court, and the student could now seek admission. The court held that the High Court was obliged to decide according to law and that equity considerations did not permit departing from the law. It allowed the Special Leave Petition, set aside the interim order, and restored the appeal to the High Court for a fresh hearing.
Issues:
Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court in an appeal against a writ petition, and whether the High Court erred in not deciding the appeal on merits due to equity considerations.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Courts ratio is that Article 136 confers discretionary power to grant leave to appeal, but once the High Court has passed an order, even on interim relief, the Supreme Court may restore the appeal only if the law so requires. Equity cannot override legal obligation, and the High Court must decide according to law, not on considerations of expediency or student career impact.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the challenged interim order is set aside, and the Special Appeal is restored to the High Court for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law.
(A) The Special Leave Petition is governed by Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which provides the apex court with discretionary jurisdiction to grant or deny leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The petition challenges an order passed in an appeal against interim orders on a writ petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The court examines whether the High Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, correctly exercised its discretion in the interest of justice, emphasizing that where law is in favor of the appellant, considerations of equity cannot override legal obligation.
(B) The core legal principles include the discretionary nature of Article 136 relief, the obligation of the High Court to decide matters according to law, the limited scope of interference with interim orders, and the principle that equity cannot prevail over established law. The case also underscores the importance of not creating a precedent in isolated decisions and the expeditious disposal of writ petitions.
Facts of the case:
An interim order was passed by the High Court in an appeal filed against a writ petition, granting relief that could have been granted finally. The Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court sought to set aside this interim order and restore the Special Appeal to the High Court for reconsideration, arguing that the career of the student would be adversely affected by the interim order and that the relief should have been final.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court observed that while the relief could have been granted finally, the interim order had already placed the matter before the High Court, and the student could now seek admission. The court held that the High Court was obliged to decide according to law and that equity considerations did not permit departing from the law. It allowed the Special Leave Petition, set aside the interim order, and restored the appeal to the High Court for a fresh hearing.
Issues:
Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court in an appeal against a writ petition, and whether the High Court erred in not deciding the appeal on merits due to equity considerations.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Courts ratio is that Article 136 confers discretionary power to grant leave to appeal, but once the High Court has passed an order, even on interim relief, the Supreme Court may restore the appeal only if the law so requires. Equity cannot override legal obligation, and the High Court must decide according to law, not on considerations of expediency or student career impact.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the challenged interim order is set aside, and the Special Appeal is restored to the High Court for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The notice that was issued on the Special Leave Petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order setting aside the order under challenge and restoring the Special Appeal to the High Court for reconsideration.
3. The order under challenge was passed in an appeal against interim orders on the respondent s writ petition. The order states :
".... Actually, the relief which the Court could have granted finally has been granted by means of the interim order. If the career of the student had not been involved, this Court would have certainly interfered with such orders, but after the declaration of the result and issuance of the marks sheet, the petitioner might have taken admission in any University or College. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to allow this Special Appeal because the entire career of the student would be adversely affected.
In view of the aforesaid reason only, we dismiss the appeal but observe that this special appeal has been dismissed considering the facts and circumstances of the present case only and it would not be a precedent for similar other cases."
4. It is the obligation of the High Court to decide the matters before it in accordance with law. If the law was, as the High Court observes in the passage quoted above, in favour of the appellant before it, it was obliged to make an order in favour of the appellant. Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law.
5. We do not make any observations in regard to the merits of the matter but, having regard to what moved the High Court to pass the order it did, we think that the Special Appeal should stand restored to the file of the High Court to be decided according to law and with due regard to what we have stated.
6. It would also be in the fitness of things that the writ petition itself should be disposed of expeditiously.
7. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and Special Appeal No. 277/99 is restored to the file of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court at Allahabad for being heard and disposed of afresh.
No order as to costs.
SLP allowed. Special appeal restored to be decided on merits.
**************