New Delhi, October 11
The Punjab and Haryana High Court and subordinate courts in Haryana have come under severe lashing by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment stating that “lack of application of mind by both the rungs of judiciary had come to light before the apex court in many cases”.

The judgment, written by Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan just before his retirement, in a case of land allotment by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) for a Bench with Justice Tarun Chatterjee, said be it the high court or the lower courts, they should “show better application of mind” while deciding the cases as they were performing a “divine function” that was onerous and challenging.

“I am making these observations regarding the courts in the state concerned since for the past three years I have been noticing with regret the lack of application in many cases that had come before this (Supreme) Court,” Justice Balasubramanyan observed.

The strongly-worded “indictment” of courts below came while allowing an appeal of the HSIDC, which was directed by the trial court, the first appellate court (a higher court in the subordinate judiciary) and the high court to restore a plot to private firm, Cork Manufacturing Co, after it was cancelled by the corporation for its failure to comply with the allotment rules.

The dispute arose in an allotment of 1986 and the litigation had passed through various forums in different stages right from the arbitration, consumer court, trial court and first appellate court before reaching the high court.

While setting aside the order of the high court and both the courts and upholding the cancellation order passed by the HSIDC, the apex court said: “The second appellate court (HC) was clearly in error in refusing to admit in evidence the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff by its advocate to the defendant.”

“The authenticity of the notice had not been questioned by filing an objection and the high court was therefore in error in thinking that it was not a document which could be straight away accepted,” the Supreme Court observed.

Coming equally severely against the lower courts “ignoring” various legal lacunae in the suit, the apex court said: “In spite of such glaring factors emerging, the trial court proceeded to accept the story of the plaintiff (Cork) that it had not been given notice of resumption of the land that it continued to be in possession…”

The first appellate court was also equally reprimanded for dismissing the HSIDC’s appeal without going deeper into the evidence. “I must say that a court of first appeal and as the final court of facts, the appellate court had a duty to reappraise the entire material to decide the points arising and in this case it has miserably failed to perform its duty.”

Analysing the entire case scenario, the apex court Bench said: “We must say with regret that the second appellate court without any application of mind - in fact it pains me to record out of my experience in this (Supreme) Court for three years, that the particular high court is disposing of second appeals in such a cavalier manner that nothing else is needed to bring discredit the system itself — rejected the second appeal by stating that no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal.”