Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 272 (GAU)

Captain Ved Barua v. Bikrom Singha Lahkar

2016-04-06

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 14.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s I.A. No. 2791/2015. 2. The State Government through an advertisement dated 3.9.2013 invited applications from qualified persons for the post of Honorary Secretary of the Assam Flying Club (in short “AFC”). And after selection process, the State Government vide order dated 7.10.2013 appointed Respondent No.1 on that post. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP (C) No. 6809/2013, but it was dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2014. He then filed WA No. 102/2014 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.3.2015. By that order, the appointment of Respondent No.1 was quashed. The State Government pursuant to order dated 4.3.2015 appointed the Joint Director, Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam as In-charge of AFC. Subsequently, two review petitions i.e. Review Petition Nos. 72/2015 and 83/2015 were filed against the order dated 4.3.2015, but both were dismissed by a common order dated 28.7.2015. Review Petition No. 83/2015 was filed by Respondent No.1. 3. During the pendency of Review Petitions, Respondent No.1 also filed WP (C) No. 3218/2015 which is pending. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1.6.2015 has directed the parties to maintain status-quo till decision of review petitions. But despite dismissal of review petitions, later, vide order dated 4.8.2015, learned Single Judge extended the relief granted vide order dated 1.6.2015 until further orders. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed I.A. No. 2791/2015 for vacating orders directing the parties to maintain status-quo. In this application, pleadings were exchanged between the appellant and Respondent No.1. On 14.3.2016, Respondent No.1 filed affidavit in reply to the affidavit of the appellant. On that day, the appellant prayed for time to go through the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1. But the learned Single Judge rejected the application for vacating of stay on the ground that pleadings had already been exchanged. It is, in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. Apparently, no reasons are assigned in the order for rejecting the grounds taken in the application for vacating the orders directing the parties to maintain status quo. In Flannery v. Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd. (2000) 1 All ER 373, pp. It is, in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. Apparently, no reasons are assigned in the order for rejecting the grounds taken in the application for vacating the orders directing the parties to maintain status quo. In Flannery v. Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd. (2000) 1 All ER 373, pp. 377, 378 (CA), it has been held that the duty to give reasons “is function of due process and therefore of justice. Its rationale has two principle aspects. The first is that fairness surely requires that the parties – especially the losing party – should be left in no doubt why they have won or lost. The Second is that a requirement to give reasons concentrates the mind and if it is fulfilled the resulting decision is much more likely to be soundly based. (See - Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 14th Edition, p. 496). 6. Since no reasons are recorded in the impugned order for dismissing I.A. No. 2791/2015, we set aside the same and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for its decision afresh on merit. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.