Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice?
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe
A writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice.
No. A writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice to the other side. The appellant had lodged a First Information Report on the day of the incident and continued to receive traffic challans for a vehicle the Company claimed to have already sold, a circumstance that called for explanation and ought to have weighed with the High Court before it threw out the petition on delay alone. (¶27)
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — s.35-A — RBI Fair Practices Code — Self-help repossession — Article 14 — Article 21 — Repossession clause — Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — s.35-A — RBI Fair Practices Code — Repossession clause validity — Held: A repossession clause dispensing with notice and leaving possession to the financier's discretion does not conform to the RBI's Guidelines. Such a clause converts a floor of minimum protection into an illusory promise defeasible at the financier's will. (¶24, 25) Self-help repossession — No force, no 'goondas' — Held further: Banks and financial institutions cannot employ 'goondas' to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle by force; seizure can only be effected through lawful means. Breaking open a steering lock at night to seize a vehicle bears every mark of the 'goonda-ism' this Court has condemned. (¶19, 21, 26) Article 14 — Article 21 — Livelihood — Held further: An unauthorised and arbitrary repossession that deprives a person of modest means of his livelihood violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Such a borrower is entitled to compensation for the resulting mental agony and loss of livelihood. (¶30) Writ jurisdiction — Delay — Held further: A writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice. Appeal allowed with costs; impugned order quashed, sale proceeds ordered refunded with interest and compensation awarded. (¶27, 29, 32, 33)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of HARI DUTTA SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India