Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sudhir Mahajan vs Union Of Territory, Chandigarh . on 22 July, 2014
î, ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30746/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/11/2011
in LPA No. 1175/2010 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
SUDHIR MAHAJAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for impleadment and permission to file additional
documents and prayer for interim relief and office report)
(For final disposal)
Date : 22/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amrender Saran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv.
Mr. A.N. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni ,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Garg, Adv.
Ms. Diviya Anand, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
Mr. M.S. Doabia, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv.
Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar, Adv.
Ms. Ambreen Rasool, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.07.24 18:44:55 ISTsigned order.
Reason: (Neeta) (Usha Sharma)
Sr. P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6672 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30746 of 2012) SUDHIR MAHAJAN Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment and order dated 14th November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1175 of 2010 (O&M).
By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the appeal with following directions:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of both the appeals with the following directions:
(i) that the claim of the
petitioner-appellant for becoming
substitution member is rejected;
(ii) that respondent no. 8 is permitted to proceed in accordance with 1991 Rules.
Accordingly it has to first offer allotment to the old members if any dwelling unit/flat on account for surrender becomes available then a notice be issued by publishing the same in a daily English newspaper like The Tribune and notice be also issued ina daily newspaper of Hindi language. The applications then shall be considered in accordance with rules.
-2-8. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal."
From the plain reading of the impugned judgment, we find that the Division Bench while noticing the argument advanced by the parties without giving any reason dispose of the appeal with the directions aforesaid. In view of the fact that judgment in question lacks reasoning, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the Division Bench for its decision on merit. We ordered accordingly. Parties should co-operate the Court to ensure that the latter patent appeal is decided on an early date.
The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.
In view of the order passed above, no order is passed in the application for impleadment. Applicant may move such application before the High Court.
...............................J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ) ...............................J. ( S.A. BOBDE ) NEW DELHI;
JULY 22, 2014