Court sets aside rejection, finds authority not a "Court," directs reconsideration. Petition allowed with disposal timeline.

The court set aside the order rejecting the writ petitioner's application under the Samadhan Act, citing that the statutory appellate authority did not qualify as a "Court." Additionally, it found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the refusal, as required by law. The court directed the matter to be reconsidered by the third respondent, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements and merit assessment. The writ petition was allowed, with directions for disposal within four weeks and no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the writ petitioner's application under the Samadhan Act due to the pendency of a statutory appeal.
2. Failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to show cause against the refusal of the application under the Samadhan Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Writ Petitioner's Application Under the Samadhan Act:

The primary issue revolves around whether the statutory appellate authority qualifies as a "Court" under Section 4 of the Samadhan Act. The writ petitioner argued that the rejection of their application was based on a misinterpretation of Section 4, which only mentions the pendency of an appeal or revision before a "Court," not a statutory appellate authority. The court examined the definition of "Court" and concluded that the term refers to a judicial body created by the sovereign, not a statutory authority. The court cited Wharton’s Law Lexicon and the J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. case to emphasize that while statutory authorities may have quasi-judicial functions, they do not qualify as courts. Consequently, the court found that the rejection of the application based on the pendency of an appeal before the statutory appellate authority was untenable.

2. Failure to Provide a Reasonable Opportunity to Show Cause:

The writ petitioner also contended that the third respondent failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the refusal of the application, as mandated by the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Samadhan Act. The court agreed with this argument, noting that the proviso explicitly requires the designated authority to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to show cause before refusing to settle arrears. The court found that this procedural requirement was not met, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the impugned order dated 04.04.2019, rejecting the writ petitioner's application under the Samadhan Act, was unsustainable on both grounds. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the third respondent for a fresh decision on the writ petitioner's application, ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements and considering the merits of the application. The writ petition was allowed, and the third respondent was directed to dispose of the application within four weeks from the receipt of the court's order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---