State of U.P. Vs. Mandleshwar Singh.
EmailAppeal: Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 2761 of 1985.
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Mandleshwar Singh.
Apeal: Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 2761 of 1985.
Judges: M.P. THAKKAR & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 29, 1987
Appearances:
Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Senior Advocate & Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:
Listing of matters at an early date -SLP came up 1 1/2 years after the quashing of the detention order – The Court was reluctant to entertain such a matter – Large number of matters remain unresolved even when the decision of the High Court is erroneous and unsustainable on merits – Early listing of matters by mentioning before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
In this matter the detention order has been quashed in May, 1985. This special Leave petition is coming up more than 1 1/2 years after the quashing of the order and in a way it has become irrelevant if not infructuous. When we pointed out this aspect to learned counsel for the petitioner it was stated that such a situation is faced in a large number of matters and even when the decision of the High Court is erroneous and unsustainable on merits it is not possible to get a decision of this Court to settle the law since we are reluctant to entertain such a petition more than one-and-a-half years after the detention order was quashed. In the result the point would always remain unresolved and the matter could never be set right. When it was pointed out that counsel should seek an order for listing the matter at an early date by mentioning before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, counsel requested that the matter may be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to bring this aspect in focus in order to seek appropriate directions to overcome such a situation in matters of this nature. Accordingly, we direct that this matter may be listed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for admission.
In this matter the detention order has been quashed in May, 1985. This special Leave petition is coming up more than 1 1/2 years after the quashing of the order and in a way it has become irrelevant if not infructuous. When we pointed out this aspect to learned counsel for the petitioner it was stated that such a situation is faced in a large number of matters and even when the decision of the High Court is erroneous and unsustainable on merits it is not possible to get a decision of this Court to settle the law since we are reluctant to entertain such a petition more than one-and-a-half years after the detention order was quashed. In the result the point would always remain unresolved and the matter could never be set right. When it was pointed out that counsel should seek an order for listing the matter at an early date by mentioning before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, counsel requested that the matter may be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to bring this aspect in focus in order to seek appropriate directions to overcome such a situation in matters of this nature. Accordingly, we direct that this matter may be listed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for admission.
