Precedent must match the facts: High Court order set aside for failing to test applicability of earlier decision.

A court may rely on precedent only where the factual matrix and issue decided are shown to be comparable; judgments are not to be read as statutes. The High Court erred by disposing of the writ petition on the basis of an earlier decision without examining whether that decision actually applied to the present facts. Mere surface similarity is insufficient when material facts differ, and the court must explain why the precedent governs the case before it. The order was therefore unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in disposing of the writ petition by relying on an earlier decision without examining whether the factual situation of that case applied to the present dispute.

Analysis: The order under challenge proceeded on the basis of an earlier decision but did not indicate how that decision was relevant to the facts before the High Court. The principle applied is that judgments are not to be read as statutes, and reliance on precedent is proper only when the factual matrix and the issue decided are shown to be comparable. A mere similarity in appearance is insufficient where the material facts differ, and a court must explain why the precedent governs the case before it.

Conclusion: The High Court's order could not be sustained because it failed to examine the applicability of the earlier decision to the facts of the case and the matter had to be remitted for fresh hearing.

---