Nazir Ahmad Magray vs State and Others

This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated: 25.2.2005 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed SWP No.

674 of 2004 observing:

No good ground is made out to admit the petition for hearing. Dismissed.

This order has been challenged on the ground that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without spelling out the reasons and

justifying the order for dismissal of the writ petition and that such an order is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court Judgments.

Mr. Jan, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. Jan, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has no case and the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

We find from the order that the learned Single Judge has observed that no ground has been made out. The grounds have not been spelt out which

weighed with the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the petition in limine. We do not think proper to go into the merit of the case which is the

domain of the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court on judgment delivered in case titled M/s Hindustan Times

Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 688 where the Supreme Court while dealing with such a case has observed as under:

The High Court ought to give reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. The absence of reasons deprives the Supreme

Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in limine. It is an unsatisfactory method of

disposal. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief in support of the High Courts' conclusion is too obvious. Obligation to give reasons

introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons.

Disposal of cases is no doubt important but quality of the judgment is equally, if not more, important. There is no point in shifting the burden to the

higher Court either to support the judgment by reasons or to consider the evidence or law for the first time to see if the judgment needs a reversal.

For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the order dated: 25.2.2005 and send the case back to learned Single Judge. Registry to fix the case in

the week following next week before the Court.