Case Details: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. KOPPARLA SANTHI., DIARY NO. - 4011/2024
“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]).”
On July 19, the Supreme Court recapitulated that the threat of Contempt of Court leading to compliance with an order does not eliminate a party's right to challenge that order.
Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra were hearing an appeal related to a land dispute.
The appellants initially filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. After their review petition was also dismissed, they appealed to the High Court's division bench. However, the division bench found the appeal to be without merit and refused to excuse the 614-day delay in filing the appeal.
The High Court 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 was presented to the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that in the decision of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020], the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, was excluded from the limitation period. This decision was made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the national lockdown. Additionally, it was clarified that an additional period of 90 days would be available from March 1, 2022, for challenging the relevant judgment or order.
The Court also took into account the submission by Senior Advocate R. Basant for the appellants, which stated that the writ appeal was filed within the necessary timeframe after obtaining 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 stated.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court observed that the Court did not thoroughly consider the appellant's case in light of the aforementioned decision. It also noted that the High Court provided no reasons for deeming the appeal 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 light of this, the Court excused the delay and set aside the impugned order. The Court also reinstated the writ appeal before the High Court for reconsideration.
TAGS: Supreme Court High court Contempt Challenge Decisions Appeal
