State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Md. Abdul Kadir & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11766 of 1999)
Petitioner: State of Assam & Ors.
Respondent: Md. Abdul Kadir & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11766 of 1999)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 07, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE LAW
High Court – Appeal from judgment of Single Judge to Division Bench in Writ case. Held that where the writ is decided is favour of the petitioners it in open to all or any of the respondents in the writ petition to file an appeal.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Against the Judge of the learned Single judgment the appell-ants herein filed an appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment., the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable. The Court was of the opin-ion that it is the State of Assam which should have filed the appeal and furthermore the Central Government or the Union of India had not been impleaded as party in the writ appeal.
3. It is not dispute that the appellants before the Division Bench had been impleaded as respondent in the writ the petition which had been filed in the High Court. This being so, it was open after the writ petition was decided in favour of the writ petitioners, to all or any of the respondents in the writ peti-tion to file an appeal. We, therefore allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct the High Court to decide the writ Appeal No. 154 of 1996 on merits.
1. Special leave granted.
2. Against the Judge of the learned Single judgment the appell-ants herein filed an appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment., the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable. The Court was of the opin-ion that it is the State of Assam which should have filed the appeal and furthermore the Central Government or the Union of India had not been impleaded as party in the writ appeal.
3. It is not dispute that the appellants before the Division Bench had been impleaded as respondent in the writ the petition which had been filed in the High Court. This being so, it was open after the writ petition was decided in favour of the writ petitioners, to all or any of the respondents in the writ peti-tion to file an appeal. We, therefore allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct the High Court to decide the writ Appeal No. 154 of 1996 on merits.
