http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1986

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1497            1986 SCR  (2)1101  1986 SCC  Supl.  (3) 696 1986 SCALE  (1)796

ACT:      Constitution of  India,  1950,  Arts.  226  and  227  - Necessity of  High Courts  to  make  speaking  orders  while dismissing petitions.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner,  who had a brilliant record in service, was reverted  on Jan.  4,  1985  from  the  post  of  Police Inspector  to   that  of   Police  Sub-Inspector   with  the endorsement that such reversion would not disqualify him for being  considered  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Police Inspector in  future.  He  made  a  detailed  representation contending that  his reversion was wholly unjustified. Since he did  not receive  any redress  of his grievance, he moved the Nagpur  Bench of  the Bombay  High Court  by a  petition under Art.  226 of the Constitution challenging the order of reversion  as   being  violative   of  Art.  311(2)  of  the Constitution. The  High  Court  dismissed  the  petition  in limine.      In appeal  to the  Supreme Court  it was contended: (i) that the  reversion  of  the  appellant  from  the  post  of Officiating Police-Inspector to that of Police Sub-Inspector was by  way of  punishment and  was thus  violative of  Art. 311(2) of the Constitution; and (ii) that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1.  The impugned  order passed  by the High Court dismissing the  writ petition  in limine  by the  use  of  a laconic word  "rejected" cannot  be sustained.  It does  not inspire public  confidence in  administration of  justice if the High  Courts were  to reject  the writ petitions without due application  of mind  even though  substantial questions were raised  in the  writ petitions. It was not right on the part of  the High  Court to  have declined  to entertain and decide the 1102 question as  to whether  the impugned order of reversion was liable to  be struck down as offending against Art.311(2) of the Constitution.  The writ  petition did  raise an arguable question and  it deserved  hearing upon  merits. [1104  G-H; 1105 A-B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    2.1 In  a hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our country,  all courts  and tribunals  including the  High Court exercising  judicial and  quasi-judicial functions owe it  a   duty  to  pass  reasoned  orders.  Therefore,  while dismissing a  writ petition  summarily, the  High Court must record reasons  briefly. A  brief statement of reasons would greatly assist  the Supreme  Court in understanding the High Court’s thought  process which,  in turn facilitates a quick and satisfactory  disposal of Special Leave Petitions. [1105 B-C; E-G]      2.2 The  High Courts  should  understand  this  Court’s difficulty in  unravelling the reasons for summary dismissal in the  absence of  a brief  statement of  reasons. It would considerably lighten  the task  of Supreme Court if the High Courts while  dismissing a writ petition were to indicate in a few words the contention(s) urged and their views that the contentions cannot prevail. [1105 G; D]      In the  instant case, the Court directed the High Court to admit  the writ petition to its file and dispose it of in accordance with law. [1106 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1963 of 1986.      From the  Judgment and Order dated 19th September, 1985 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1985.      U.R. Lalit, S.V. Deshpande, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S. Ray for the Appellant.      V.N. Ganpule,  A.M. Khanwilkar  and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SEN, J.  This is  a petition for grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution directed against the 1103 judgment and  order of the Bombay High Court dated September 19, 1985  dismising a petition filed by the petitioner under Art. 226  of the  Constitution challenging  an order  of the Additional Inspector General of Police, Bombay dated January 4, 1985  for his  reversion from  the post  of Offg.  Police Inspector to  that  of  Sub-Inspector  of  Police  as  being violative  of  Art.  311(2)  of  the  Constitution.  By  the impugned order,  the  High  Court  has  dismissed  the  Writ Petition in  limine just  by  the  use  of  a  laconic  word ’rejected’.      The Facts.  The petitioner was promoted as Offg. Police Inspector on  May 22,  1983, on  the recommendation  of  the Selection Board upon reviewing his case. While he was posted as Police  Inspector at  Ramtak  in  1982,  he  successfully handled the difficult situation arising at Kanhan Coal Mines where  there  was  a  quarrel  between  two  unions,  namely I.T.U.C. and  I.N.T.U.C. and received a cash prize of Rs. 50 and ’C’  Note from  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Nagpur District (Rural)  by order  dated October  28, 1983. He also received several  commendations for  tactfully handling  the situation at  Kamptee on  the  eve  of  Dussehra,  Muharram, Ganeshpooja and  Bakr-Id festivals  in the  years  1982  and 1983. During  the period from February to March 1983, he was deputed to  Delhi as  a Special  Security  Officer  for  the Seventh Non-Aligned  Conference and  was  posted  at  Vigyan Bhawan for  making security arrangements. All of a sudden on January 4, 1985, the petitioner was served with the impugned order of  reversion by  the Additional  Inspector General of Police, Bombay  from the Post of Police Inspector to that of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Police  Sub-Inspector   with  the   endorsement  that   such reversion would  not disqualify him for being considered for promotion to the post of Police Inspector in future.      It  appears   from  the   return  filed  by  the  State Government in  the High  Court that this reversion was based upon the  report of  the Selection Committee that he was not fit to  be retained  as Police Inspector. The recommendation was based  on the  Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 to the effect that the petitioner was given to heavy drinking  and had  practically become a physical wreck and though  young he  was wholly  unfit to  hold independent charge. The  adverse  entries  in  the  Annual  Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 were communicated to the petitioner in December 1984. 1104 The petitioner  was given  two  months’  time  to  make  his representation against  the adverse  entries i.e.  time till February 1985.      The petitioner contends that the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983 were wholly baseless  and he  accordingly within time prescribed, made  a   detailed  representation  pointing  out  that  his reversion on  the ground  of the Annual Confidential Reports was  wholly   unjustified.  He   also   annexed   with   the representation all  the documents  which he filed along with the Writ  Petition, showing  that the  remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports  that he  was unfit  for  service  were uncalled for  and prayed  that the  order  of  reversion  be stayed till  the consideration  of his  representation.  Not having received  any redress of his grievance the petitioner moved the  Nagpur Bench  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  by  a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition in limine. On a perusal of the  return filed  by the  State Government  in the  High Court, it  is apparent  that the reversion of the petitioner was solely  based on  the recommendation  of  the  Selection Board which  appears to have reviewed his case for retention on the  post of Police Inspector and took into consideration the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982 and 1983.      The only  contention before us is that the reversion of the petitioner  from the  post of  Offg. Police Inspector to that of  Police Sub-Inspector  was by  way of punishment and was thus violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. It is urged that  the High  Court was  not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition in limine.      We refrain  from expressing  any  opinion  whether  the impugned order  was by way of punishment or not. All that we wish to  say is  that we  are distressed  to find  that  the impugned order  passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition in  limine by  the use of a laconic word ’rejected’ cannot be  sustained. It  does not inspire public confidence in administration  of justice  if the  High Courts  were  to reject the  Writ Petitions  without due  application of mind even though  substantial questions  were raised  in the Writ Petitions. It was not right on the part of the High Court to have declined 1105 to entertain  and decide  the question  as  to  whether  the impugned order  of reversion was liable to be struck down as offending against  Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The Writ Petition did  raise an  arguable question  and  it  deserved hearing upon merits.      In a  hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our country, all  courts and  tribunals including the High Court exercising judicial  and quasi-judicial  functions owe  it a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

duty to  pass reasoned  orders. As it is, there is a growing tendency to  file indiscriminate petitions under Art. 136 of the Constitution  and this  Court is  finding  it  extremely difficult to tackle with the backlog of cases because of the precious  time   occupied  in   disposal  of  Special  Leave Petitions which,  we regret  to say,  are wholly  devoid  of substance and  of a  frivolous nature. It would considerably lighten the  task of  this Court  if the  High Courts  while dismissing a  Writ Petition  were to indicate in a few words the  contention(s)   urged  and   their   views   that   the contention(s) cannot prevail. We are distressed to find that there is  a growing  tendency in  some of the High Courts to dismiss petitions  filed  under  Art.  226  or  227  of  the Constitution in  limine without a speaking order just by the use of a laconic word ’rejected’ or ’dismissed’.      How often  must this Court decree that while dismissing a Writ  Petition  summarily,  the  High  Court  must  record reasons briefly?  We regret  that this has to be stated once again. We  trust the High Courts to follow the law laid down by this  Court which,  indeed, is obligatory upon them under Art. 141  of the  Constitution. A brief statement of reasons would greatly  assist this  Court in  understanding the High Court’s thought  process which,  in turn facilitates a quick and satisfactory  disposal of  Special Leave  Petitions.  We understand the difficulty of the High Courts in writing long orders while  dismissing Writ  Petitions summarily. The High Courts should  understand our  difficulty in unravelling the reasons for  summary dismissal  in the  absence of  a  brief statement of  reasons. These  are hallmarks of a disciplined judicial process.      Since, in  the instant  case,  the  Writ  Petition  did involve a  question deserving  of careful  consideration, we grant special  leave under  Art. 136 of the Constitution and set 1106 aside the  order of  the High Court of summary dismissal. We direct the High Court to admit the Writ Petition to its file and dispose  it of  in accordance  with law.  The petitioner shall  be   entitled  to  his  costs.  Costs  quantified  at Rs.1,000. M.L.A.                                       Appeal allowed. 1107