Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 73 (GAU)

SANJUKTA DAS v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-01-21

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M. Sapre, C.J.) Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. This is an intra- court appeal filed by the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.5679 of 2006 against the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge under Rule 2(3) of Chapter VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition essentially on the ground that since better particulars needed to sustain the arguments advanced by the writ petitioner in support of the petition were lacking in the writ petition and, therefore, the petition cannot be entertained for being decided on merit on the issues raised therein. It is apposite to reproduce the concluding part of the judgment impugned herein that being the only relevant paragraph necessary to take note of for disposal of the appeal and on which the impugned judgment is founded : “Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner although, during the course of argument submitted that not a single SC category candidate has been appointed in the entire Cachar District but on being asked to point out such statements in the writ petition, he failed to do so. However, he submitted that the Reservation Roster was not followed but in the writ petition no details of such allegations have been furnished.” Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice some averments from the petition and specially the averments made in paragraphs 11 and 12 and contended that reading these averments together would satisfy the factual requirements for challenging the action impugned in the writ petition. He also urged that instead of dismissing the writ petition on this technical ground, the petitioner could have been afforded an opportunity to file amendment application or/and to file additional evidence in support of the writ petition. He, therefore, prays for an opportunity in this appeal to amend the writ petition apart from relying on the averments made in paragraphs 11 and 12 to justify that petition does contain necessary averments for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition. In reply, Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. He, therefore, prays for an opportunity in this appeal to amend the writ petition apart from relying on the averments made in paragraphs 11 and 12 to justify that petition does contain necessary averments for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition. In reply, Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal and remand the case for deciding the writ petition on merits after affording the parties an opportunity to amend the pleadings and to file additional affidavits/evidence in support of their pleadings in case they so wish. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case and hence we do not wish to burden this order by narrating the facts in details. It is now for the writ court to record the finding on merits in accordance with law on the controversy raised by the parties. In our considered view, we prima facie find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition does contain some averments if not fully in paragraphs 11 and 12 to sustain the contentions urged in the petition. Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of the controversy raised by the petitioner, in our view, she was entitled to have an opportunity to amend the pleadings rather than to suffer dismissal on such ground and to plead the necessary averments to sustain the plea raised. This indulgence, in our opinion, can still be granted even at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Let the writ petition be listed before the appropriate Bench as per the roster. The parties are, however, granted opportunity to amend their pleadings and file additional evidence in case they so wish in support of their pleadings. The writ court would then decide the writ petition on merits in accordance with law. We request the writ court to decide the writ petition preferably within a period of six months from the date of its listing. Let the writ petition be listed within two weeks from today. No cost.