Apex Court Unhappy Over Bombay High Court : Not Granting Interim Relief And Making Petition Infructuous

While hearing a matter related to the Class 12 State Board exam, the Apex Court criticized the approach taken by the High Court of Bombay in a writ plea wherein the case was made infructuous because of refusal of interim relief after the plea was admitted.

The Bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and M.M. Sundresh questioned why the case was admitted if it was to be dismissed ultimately. The court remarked that either the writ was liable to be dismissed or allowed.

These observations were made by the Court in an SLP filed by students who had taken the class 12th exam under the Maharashtra State Board exams of February 2020 but were not allowed to appear for the improvement exam due to various circumstances.

The first improvement exam was held in November 2020 which the petitioners could not give due to the pandemic. The next improvement exam was supposed to be held in April 2021 but was postponed to September 2021.

Before the High Court, the petitioners prayed that the September 2021 exam should be declared the first attempt out of two. Before the Apex Court Bench, the appellant’s counsel submitted that a coordinate bench of the High Court has already directed that the September 2021 exam should be considered a first attempt.

After hearing the submissions, the court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the High Court to ensure that the relief claimed by the appellants doesn’t become infructuous.

Title: Samruddhi Sambhaji Padwal & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors

Case No.: SLP ( C ) No.: 2305 of 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1493/2022

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.2305/2022)

SAMRUDDHI SAMBHAJI PADWAL & ANR. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and in substance are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court in respect to the impugned order dated 28.1.2022 where it has opined that after hearing the counsel for petitioner(s)/ appellants herein at the length the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and in fact was inclined to dismiss the same in view of the fact that the appellants did not avail of two consecutive attempts for improvement but at the persistent persuasion of learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/ appellants herein they were admitting the matter. The matter was admitted with no interim relief.

3. In any matter, more so of this nature, there is no charity to be done by the Court by admitting the matter and making it infructuous and adding to the arrear list of the High Court. Either the writ was liable to be allowed or dismissed. After opining it was required to be dismissed, we see no point why it was admitted.

4. Having said so we may notice the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on merits where he relies on an Order passed by a coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.8928/ 2021 on 02.9.2021 filed by the petitioner(s)/appellants. This Order, learned counsel states was placed on record along with the copy of the petition earlier filed. He has drawn our attention to the paragraph 3 of that Order where a concession is being made and recorded on behalf of the Board. In terms of the concession, it has been opined that the examination held in February, 2020 to appear in the Class Improvement Examination to be held by the Board in the last week of September would be considered as the first attempt. It is thus the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the attempt made by him earlier should be taken as a first attempt.

5. Whether in the facts of the case this preposition would apply or not is something which the High Court is required to consider on merits.

6. We are thus of the view that the appropriate course of action would be to set aside the impugned order to the extent it grants admission and says no stay with a direction that the matter be examined in the contours of the aforesaid controversy at the admission stage itself and a view taken on merits one way or the other.

7. The civil appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms requiring the High Court to decide the matter on merits in terms aforesaid keeping in mind the judgment of the coordinate Bench of the Court as may be applicable to the facts of the present case expeditiously in order to ensure that the relief claimed by the appellants does 2 not become infructuous and he would know his fate one way or the other.

……………………………………….

1. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

……………………………………….

(M.M. SUNDRESH)

NEW DELHI; 18TH FEBRUARY, 2022

   ITEM NO.10                     Court 6 (Video Conferencing)                SECTION IX

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.2305/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-01-2022 in W.P. No.13928/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad)

SAMRUDDHI SAMBHAJI PADWAL & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.21389/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

(IA No.21393/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 18-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Karthik, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Saaketh Kasibhatla, Adv. Ms. Sheetal Patil, Adv. Mr. Mool Singh, Adv. Mr. P. Prakash, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(RASHMI DHYANI)

 COURT MASTER

(POONAM VAID)

          COURT MASTER

 (signed order is placed on the file)