High Court quashes delayed order, stresses timely justice |

The High Court allowed the Petition due to undue delay in passing the order after the conclusion of the case. The impugned order was quashed, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing and decision. The Court emphasized the importance of timely judgments to maintain public confidence in the judicial system and protect parties' rights. Respondent No.2 was directed to ensure no delays in passing orders after the case concludes, with any orders stemming from the quashed order also set aside. A related Civil Application was granted accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Delay in passing the order after the conclusion of the case.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the limited grievance raised by the Petitioner regarding the delay in passing the order after the conclusion of the case. The undisputed facts revealed that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on July 31, 2012, and written submissions were filed in response on September 21, 2012, along with replies on September 27, 2012, and October 31, 2012. Despite a personal hearing being conducted on September 27, 2012, the impugned order was passed on February 28, 2014, causing the Petitioner to file the present Petition.

The Court referred to various judgments, including Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and R.C. Sharma v. Union of India, emphasizing that undue delays between the conclusion of arguments and the delivery of judgment erode public confidence in the judicial system and impact the parties' rights. The Apex Court's guidelines stress the importance of preventing delays in delivering judgments after the conclusion of a case. The Court highlighted that even in the case of the High Court, there should be no delay between the conclusion of a case and the passing of an order, emphasizing that Tribunals should not pass orders after inordinate delays.

Consequently, the Court allowed the Petition on the grounds of the undue delay in passing the order. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, remanding the matter to Respondent No.2 for a fresh hearing and decision. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to ensure no delays in passing the order after the case is closed for orders following a hearing. Additionally, any orders passed as a consequence of the quashed order were also set aside. A related Civil Application was also allowed in light of the orders passed in the Petition.

---