Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the appellant concerning environmental issues in Lonavala. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Chief Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice D.B. Bhosale, had reserved judgment on 17th February 2006. Before the judgment could be pronounced, Chief Justice Bhandari demitted office upon elevation to the Supreme Court. The judgment, which had been prepared by Justice Bhosale and signed by both judges, was thereafter pronounced by Justice Bhosale alone on 28th February 2006. The appellant challenged an order passed in the PIL, and the respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal and the validity of the judgment pronounced by a single judge after the other judge had ceased to hold office. The court examined whether the order refusing to recall an earlier order in a PIL constituted a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and whether the pronouncement of the judgment by one judge after the other had demitted office was legally valid. The court held that the impugned order finally determined the rights of the parties and disposed of the application, thus it was a judgment appealable under Clause 15. Regarding the pronouncement, the court noted that the judgment had been prepared and signed by both judges before Chief Justice Bhandari demitted office, and therefore it was a valid judgment of the Division Bench. The pronouncement by Justice Bhosale alone did not invalidate it. The court dismissed the preliminary objections and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Order refusing to recall earlier order in PIL is a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of Letters Patent - The impugned order finally determined rights of parties and disposed of the application, hence appealable (Paras 1-10).
B) Constitutional Law - Pronouncement of Judgment - Validity - Judgment prepared and signed by both judges of Division Bench can be pronounced by one judge after other ceases to hold office - The judgment is not rendered invalid as it was already finalized before demitting office (Paras 11-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a judgment prepared by a member of a Division Bench and signed by the other member can be pronounced by him even after the other member ceases to be a Judge of the Court; and whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order refusing to recall an earlier order in a Public Interest Litigation.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the preliminary objections and held that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable and the judgment pronounced by Justice D.B. Bhosale alone is valid. The court then proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
Law Points
- Judgment pronouncement by one judge after other judge ceases to hold office is valid if judgment was prepared and signed by both before demitting office
- Letters Patent Appeal maintainable against order refusing to recall earlier order in PIL
Case Details
Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2006 in Public Interest Litigation No.10 of 2005
Smt. Ranjana Desai, D.B. Bhosale
Mr K.K. Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Ms Aparna Shinde for the appellant; Mr S.G. Aney, Senior Counsel with Mr C.S. Balsara, Mr H.N. Vakil, Mr D.D. Mehta i/b Mulla & Mulla for respondent no.4; Mr S.V. Pitre for respondent no.1
Shri Mishrimal Jethmal Oswal
The Municipal Council of Lonavala, The State of Maharashtra, The Collector of District Pune, The Tata Power Company Ltd, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd, The Commanding Officer, INS Shivaji
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order in a Public Interest Litigation
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to challenge an order passed in the PIL, and the respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the appeal and validity of the judgment pronouncement
Filing Reason
The appellant filed the appeal against an order refusing to recall an earlier order in the PIL
Previous Decisions
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had reserved judgment in the PIL on 17th February 2006; before pronouncement, one judge demitted office; the judgment was pronounced by the remaining judge on 28th February 2006
Issues
Whether the order impugned in the appeal is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, making the appeal maintainable
Whether a judgment prepared by a member of a Division Bench and signed by the other member can be pronounced by him even after the other member ceases to be a Judge of the Court
Submissions/Arguments
The respondents argued that the impugned order was not a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and thus the appeal was not maintainable
The respondents also contended that the judgment pronounced by a single judge after the other judge had demitted office was invalid
Ratio Decidendi
An order refusing to recall an earlier order in a Public Interest Litigation, which finally determines the rights of the parties and disposes of the application, is a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is appealable. A judgment prepared and signed by both judges of a Division Bench before one judge demits office is a valid judgment of the Division Bench and can be pronounced by the remaining judge alone.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal question, which arises for determination in this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is whether the Judgment prepared by a member of the Division Bench and thereafter signed by the other member can be pronounced by him even after the other member of the Bench ceases to be a Judge of this Court.
The question as to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal was also raised, in the course of arguments, contending that by no stretch of imagination the order, impugned in the appeal, can be treated as a Judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Procedural History
The appellant filed Public Interest Litigation No.10 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench heard the matter and reserved judgment on 17th February 2006. Before pronouncement, one of the judges, Chief Justice Dalveer Bhandari, demitted office upon elevation to the Supreme Court. The judgment, prepared by Justice D.B. Bhosale and signed by both judges, was pronounced by Justice Bhosale alone on 28th February 2006. The appellant then filed Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2006 against an order passed in the PIL. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the appeal and validity of the judgment pronouncement.
Acts & Sections
- Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court: Clause 15
