Delhi High Court – Orders
Manish Kumar Sachar vs U.O.I & Ors on 21 April, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13864/2006
MANISH KUMAR SACHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Ms. Rajul
Jain and Ms. Poorvi, Advs.
versus
U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr Balendu Shekhar CGSC Mr
Rajkumar Maurya Advocate Mr Krishna
Chaitanya, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER
% 21.04.2025
1. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned
Counsel for the respondent, had placed reliance on the judgment of the
two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in UOI v T.V. Patel1. Mr.
Shekhar had submitted that T.V. Patel enunciated the law contrary to
the later enunciation to be found in UOI v R.P. Singh2.
2. The Supreme Court has recently held in Union Territory of
Ladakh v Jammu and Kashmir National Conference3, that where
Coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court have laid down the law
differently, High Courts were required to follow the decision rendered
1 (2007) 4 SCC 785
2 (2014) 7 SCC 340
3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140
WP C 13864/2006 Page 1 of 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 22:05:26
prior in point of time.
3. Mr. Chhibber today submits that if this principle is applied,
even prior to decision in T.V. Patel, the Supreme Court in S.N.
Narula v UOI4 held that non-communication, to the Charged Officer,
of the advice of UPSC, would vitiate the proceedings.
4. As such, the earliest judgment in point of time, submits Mr.
Chhibber, is S.N. Narula.
5. Following this approach, Mr Chhibber submits that a coordinate
Bench of this Court, in its judgement in Ministry of Railways v
Mohan Singh Sandhu5, authored by one of us (C. Hari Shankar J.),
has held that the law that binds is that enunciated in S.N. Narula and
R.P. Singh.
6. It does not appear that the decision in Mohan Singh Sandhu
has been carried in appeal.
7. We have also come across the decision of the Supreme Court in
UOI v S.K. Kapoor6 which specifically held that the decision in T.V.
Patel, on which Mr. Balendu Shekhar placed reliance, was rendered
per incuriam. Para 9 of the said decision reads thus:
9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N. Narula case was prior to
the decision in T.V. Patel case. It is well settled that if a subsequent
coordinate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can
only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a
coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength.
4 (2011) 4 SCC 591
5 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9599
6 (2011) 4 SCC 589WP C 13864/2006 Page 2 of 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 22:05:26
Since, the decision in S.N. Narula case was not noticed in T.V. Patel case,
the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula
case was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it
could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this
Court.
8. However, as the decision of the coordinate Bench in Mohan
Singh Sandhu and of the Supreme Court in S N Narula and S K
Kapur were produced in court today by Mr. Chhibber, Mr. Balendu
Shekar seeks a day’s time to take instructions.
9. Re-notify on 24 April 2025 as part-heard for disposal in the
Supplementary List.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
APRIL 21, 2025/dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
WP C 13864/2006 Page 3 of 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/04/2025 at 22:05:26
[ad_1]
Source link