Pradeep Joshi vs. State Of Mp

Court:Supreme Court of India

Judge:Hon'ble Kurian Joseph

Case Status:Disposed

Order Date:20 Feb 2017

CNR:SCIN010013202017

AI Summary

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court order that had merely remanded a case back to the District Collector for fresh consideration. This decision highlights the Supreme Court's reluctance to intervene in procedural remands, ensuring that administrative authorities have the opportunity to pass reasoned orders in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with a High Court's order of remand to an administrative authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, especially at the special leave petition stage, as such an order is procedural and aims to ensure proper legal process.

Case Identifiers

Primary Case No:5376/2017

Case Type:Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Case Sub-Type:SLP - Administrative Remand

Secondary Case Numbers:1320/2017

Order Date:2017-02-20

Filing Year:2017

Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Bench:Division Bench

Judges:Hon'ble Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble R. Banumathi

Petitioner's Counsel

Fakhruddin

Senior Advocate - Appeared

Raj Kishor Choudhary

Advocate - Appeared

Advocates on Record

Raj Kishor Choudhary

eCourtsIndia AI^TM

Brief Facts Summary

The petitioner, Pradeep Joshi, filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging a final judgment and order dated 20/12/2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in WA No. 404/2016. The High Court's order had remanded the original matter to the District Collector to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

Timeline of Events

2004

Likely initiation of underlying dispute in High Court (WP-2828-2004)

2006

Another related Writ Petition filed in High Court (WP-5823-2006)

2016-12-20

High Court of M.P. passed impugned order in WA No. 404/2016, remanding matter to District Collector.

2017-02-13

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5376/2017 filed in Supreme Court.

2017-02-20

Supreme Court heard and dismissed the SLP.

Key Factual Findings

The High Court had only remanded the matter to District Collector to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law.

Source: Current Court Finding

Primary Legal Issues

1.Whether the High Court's order of remanding the matter to the District Collector for fresh orders warrants interference by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition.

Secondary Legal Issues

1.Scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against a procedural remand order.

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner, through Senior Advocate Mr. Fakhruddin and Advocate Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, implicitly argued for interference with the High Court's remand order, suggesting that the remand was unwarranted or that the High Court should have decided the matter itself.

Respondent's Arguments

No counsel appeared for the Respondent (State of M.P.) as per the record of proceedings. However, implicitly, the High Court's decision to remand would have been argued as legally sound.

Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court reasoned that since the High Court had only remanded the matter to the District Collector to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, there was no ground to interfere at this stage. The remand order was seen as a procedural step ensuring due process, rather than a final decision on merits, thus not warranting intervention.

Judicial Philosophy Indicators:

Reluctance to interfere in procedural matters where due process is ensured
Emphasis on allowing lower authorities to function within their legal bounds

Order Nature:Procedural

Disposition Status:Disposed

Disposition Outcome:Dismissed

Impugned Orders

High Court of M.P. at Gwalior

Case: WA No. 404/2016

Date: 2016-12-20

Specific Directions

1.The special leave petition is dismissed.
2.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Precedential Assessment

Non-Binding (Procedural)

The order is a summary dismissal of a Special Leave Petition at the admission stage, specifically stating non-interference with a remand order. It reinforces existing principles rather than establishing new law.

Tips for Legal Practice

1.Special Leave Petitions challenging High Court remands to administrative authorities are unlikely to be entertained by the Supreme Court, especially where the remand is for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

2.Counsel should carefully assess if a High Court's remand order truly presents a substantial question of law or a final determination warranting Supreme Court intervention, rather than a mere procedural direction.

3.It is crucial to determine if the High Court has applied correct legal principles for remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Legal Tags

Special Leave Petition dismissal scope of interferenceHigh Court remand orders to administrative authoritiesSupreme Court jurisprudence on procedural remandsAdministrative law judicial review District CollectorArticle 136 powers against interim procedural ordersWrit Appeal challenges to High Court judgmentsNon-interference principle in appellate jurisdictionSupreme Court of India decision February 2017

Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Case Registered

Listed On:

13 Feb 2017

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

|ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5376/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/12/2016 in WA No. 404/2016 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Gwalior) PRADEEP JOSHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief) Date : 20/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fakhruddin,Sr.Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R T he High Court has only remanded the matter to District Collector to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. The special leave petition is hence dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(1) - 20 Feb 2017

ROP - of Main Case

Viewing

Order(2) - 20 Feb 2017