Allahabad High Court
Nitish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36881 of 2022
Petitioner :- Nitish Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Parvez Iqbal Ansari
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Petitioner before this Court is a returned candidate who is aggrieved that his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. against election petition filed by runner up candidate was rejected by a non speaking order dated 25.10.2022.
S/Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey and Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that above referred brief order is bereft of any reasoning or any application of mind and therefore it is liable to be set aside.
Order dated 25.10.2022 is reproduced below -:
"25.10.2022-:
???????? ??? ???, ????????? ????? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? 24.05.2022 ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? 7 ??? 11 ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 24.06.2022 ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? 7 ??? 11 ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????? 01.11.2022 ?? ??? ???"
Sri Parvez Iqbal Ansari, learned counsel for election petitioner is not able to convince this Court that above referred order has any reasoning or any application of mind that why application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected.
In a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India and another vs. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 SCC Online SC 1067 by enumerating way of writing a judgment has reiterated that there must be a reasoning behind any order to give opportunity to parties to appreciate reasons and to take further remedy in accordance with law, of which relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinafter -:
"23. In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts to structure them in a manner such that the 'Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion' are easily identifiable. The well-renowned 'IRAC' method generally followed for analyzing cases and structuring submissions can also benefit judgments when it is complemented by recording the facts and submissions.
24. The 'Issue' refers to the question of law that the court is deciding. A court may be dealing with multiple issues in the same judgment. Identifying these issues clearly helps structure the judgment and provides clarity for the reader on the specific issue of law being decided in a particular segment of a judgment. The 'Rule' refers to the portion of the judgment which distils the submissions of counsel on the applicable law and doctrine for the issue identified. This rule is applied to the facts of the case in which the issue has arisen. The analysis recording the reasoning of a court forms the 'Application' section.
25. Finally, it is always useful for a court to summarize and lay out the 'Conclusion' on the basis of its determination of the application of the rule to the issue along with the decision vis-a-vis the specific facts. This allows stakeholders, especially members of the bar as well as judges relying upon the case in the future, to concisely understand the holding of the case."
Considering above submissions and above referred impugned order as well as in light of SBI and another (supra), impugned order is bereft of any reasoning and it is passed in a cryptic manner.
Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order on application filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. It has been brought on record that specific issue was also framed in regard to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which may be decided as a preliminary issue.
Petition stands allowed with above observations.
Order Date :- 18.1.2023
Nirmal Sinha
