Skip to content


Feroz N. Anklesaria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1981Supp(1)SCC68
ActsConstitution Of India - Article 226
AppellantFeroz N. Anklesaria
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
Excerpt:
- [ r.s. pathak and; r.s. sarkaria, jj.] -- constitution of india — article 226 — order of dismissal of writ petition for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel — petitioner-appellant having shifted his place of business making enquiry by letter from the registry of the high court about the date of hearing but the registry refusing to intimate on hyper-technical grounds -- the high court issued rule nisi to the respondents and the case was set down for hearing on march 23, 1978. the high court dismissed the writ petition in default of appearance. thereafter, in june 1978 the appellant made a petition to the high court to set aside the order of dismissal......by him that his counsel had shifted his place of business to delhi without informing him about the date of hearing and consequently, he wrote to the registrar of the high court to intimate to him the date of hearing in the writ petition. he also sent postal stamps to cover the reply postage. the registrar refused to inform him about the date of hearing, saying that he should make the inquiry from his counsel. the appellant stated that he had made the petition for setting aside the dismissal after coming to know about the dismissal. it appears to us that in the circumstances of the case when the registry of the high court itself had refused to inform the appellant about the date of hearing on hypertechnical grounds, the high court should have set aside its order of dismissal for default......
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak and; R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.

1. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to challenge the order of his dismissal from service passed by respondents. The High Court issued rule nisi to the respondents and the case was set down for hearing on March 23, 1978. On that date neither the writ petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default of appearance. Thereafter, in June 1978 the appellant made a petition to the High Court to set aside the order of dismissal. It was stated by him that his counsel had shifted his place of business to Delhi without informing him about the date of hearing and consequently, he wrote to the Registrar of the High Court to intimate to him the date of hearing in the writ petition. He also sent postal stamps to cover the reply postage. The Registrar refused to inform him about the date of hearing, saying that he should make the inquiry from his counsel. The appellant stated that he had made the petition for setting aside the dismissal after coming to know about the dismissal. It appears to us that in the circumstances of the case when the Registry of the High Court itself had refused to inform the appellant about the date of hearing on hypertechnical grounds, the High Court should have set aside its order of dismissal for default. In the interests of justice we set aside the order of dismissal of the writ petition for default passed by the High Court and send the case back to it for disposal on merits after hearing the parties.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //