The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on judicial propriety, has set aside a judgment from the High Court of Telangana, holding that a Division Bench cannot call for a main writ petition and decide it on the merits while hearing a writ appeal filed merely against the refusal of an interim order in that same petition. The Court termed the High Court’s procedure a “grave irregularity” that “goes against the very basic principles of judicial norms and propriety.”
The bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, allowed the appeals filed by Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and restored the original writ petition to be heard afresh by an appropriate bench of the High Court.
Case Background
The matter originated from W.P. No. 25457 of 2024 filed before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad by Mr. V. Yugandar and Mr. T. Praveen (respondents no. 4 and 5). When the petitioners were refused a stay/interim order in their writ petition, they filed a Writ Appeal, W.A. No. 1126 of 2024, before a Division Bench of the same High Court.
The Division Bench then proceeded to call for the main writ petition and heard it along with the writ appeal. On October 3, 2024, the Division Bench passed a common judgment, disposing of both the writ appeal and the main writ petition. It was this common judgment that the Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, the appellant, challenged before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, made a “short point” before the Supreme Court. It was argued that the Division Bench of the High Court acted improperly on several counts. Firstly, it was contended that the Division Bench could not have called for the main Writ Petition to be heard along with the Writ Appeal, as the appeal’s scope was limited to the refusal of an interim order.
Secondly, the appellant argued that the Division Bench improperly expanded the scope of the appeal to decide the main merits of the writ petition itself. Thirdly, it was submitted that such an action breached the administrative powers of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, as “no matter can be suo motu called for by any Court except by the permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of that High Court.”
Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents (the original writ petitioners) “was not in a position to defend the aforesaid factual aspects.” The counsel, however, submitted that the matter was old and requested the Court to protect the interests of his clients as much time had elapsed.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court found merit in the appellant’s submissions, identifying a “grave irregularity” in the judgment passed by the High Court.
The bench unequivocally stated that the writ petition, which was never formally before the Division Bench, could not have been called for during the hearing of the writ appeal. The Court’s order emphasized the violation of fundamental judicial procedure, observing, “deciding the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal by the same Court itself goes against the very basic principles of judicial norms and propriety.”
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s action to be indefensible. In its order, the bench recorded, “Here, the same Court has decided the original Writ Petition and also, the Writ Appeal against the said order in the Writ Petition, which is totally impermissible in law and cannot be justified on any ground.”
Decision of the Supreme Court
For the reasons stated, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated October 3, 2024.
The Court directed that the Writ Petition be “restored to its original file and number.” Further, it granted liberty to the parties “to move before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court for assigning the matter to an appropriate Bench to consider the same, in accordance with law, after hearing the concerned parties.”
The bench made it explicitly clear that its decision was based solely on the procedural irregularity and not on the substance of the dispute, stating, “We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.” The parties were left at liberty to avail their remedies as available in law, subject to the final result of the writ petition.
