Compliance Of An Order Under Threat Of Contempt Cannot Take Away Party's Right To Challenge That Order: Supreme Court

“This Court made it clear that compliance of an order under threat cannot take away the right of a party as available to challenge the same, in law (See the decision of this Court in Subodh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 11 SCC 139]).”

The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra were hearing an appeal arising out of a land dispute.

Initially, petitioners (present appellants) had filed a writ petition before the High Court; however, the same was dismissed. Since the review petition was also dismissed, the petitioner filed a writ appeal before the High Court. However, the division bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, observing that it was meritless. Further, the Court also declined to condone the delay of 614 days in filing the appeal.

It is also important to mention that for the aspect of delay, the High Court had observed:

“Having failed to render any plausible explanation for purposes of explaining the delay, the applicants appear to have trumped up the allegation of fraud to succeed for getting the delay condoned.”

When the matter came before the Supreme Court, the Bench observed that in the decision of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Moto WritPetition (C) No. 3 of 2020, it excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from the period of limitation. This decision was passed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the national lockdown. Apart from this, it was also made clear a further period of 90 days would be available from 01.03.2022 for challenging the judgment/order concerned.

The Court also considered the submission made by Senior Advocate R Basant for the appellants that the writ appeal was filed within the required time after receiving a certified copy of the review order.

“Taking note of the aforesaid explanation, we are of inclined to hold that petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay, if any, is preferring appeal against the judgment in W.P. No. 16019 of 2020.,” the Court marked in its order.

It may be mentioned at this stage that while dismissing the writ appeal, the High Court drove its strength from the case of Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563. Therein, it was held:

“It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.”

Per Contra, the Supreme Court observed that the Court did not apply its mind while considering the appellant's case in light of this aforementioned decision. It went on to note that the High Court assigned no reasons for rendering the appeal as meritless.

“Paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment would not reveal application of mind in considering the case of the appellant, in the light of the decision referred (supra). To put it filthily, though it was held that the appeal is meritless the impugned judgment would not disclose any reason therefor. There can be no doubt that application of mind can be reflected only through reasons. In fact, it is the cursory consideration that culminated in the impugned judgment.”

In view of this, the Court condoned the delay while setting aside the impugned order. The Court also restored the writ appeal before the High Court for it to reconsider.

Case Details: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. KOPPARLA SANTHI., DIARY NO. - 4011/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Click here to read/ download the order