Petitioners Directed to Use Statutory Appeals, Allowed to Contest Delayed Adjudication After Complying With Pre-Deposit Requirements

HC, following its earlier precedent on delayed adjudication challenges, declined to decide the merits of the writ petitions and relegated petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy. The writ petitions were disposed of by granting petitioners liberty to file appeals against the orders-in-original, with a specific right to raise all permissible grounds, including the plea of delayed adjudication. The court recorded petitioners' undertaking to file such appeals within six weeks from uploading of the order and to comply with all statutory requirements, including pre-deposit.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether, in writ petitions challenging orders-in-original on the ground of delayed adjudication, the Court should itself examine the delay or relegate the parties to the statutory appellate remedy in light of the order of the Supreme Court in relation to delayed adjudication.

1.2 Whether, where petitioners have bona fide pursued writ proceedings against orders-in-original, the statutory appeals filed thereafter should be entertained without being defeated on limitation.

1.3 What directions are appropriate in writ petitions where adjudication pursuant to show cause notices is still pending, in the context of the Supreme Court's order requiring deferment of consideration of the issue of delayed adjudication.

1.4 Whether the Court should examine the merits of the disputes or the contention of delayed adjudication in these petitions, or leave all such contentions open for adjudication by the statutory authorities.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Course to be adopted where orders-in-original are challenged on the ground of delayed adjudication

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court referred to its earlier disposition of a similar writ petition, where liberty had been granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order-in-original raising all permissible contentions, including delayed adjudication, and where the appellate authority was directed to act in accordance with law while taking cognisance of the Supreme Court's order dated 02 May 2025 in a pending special leave petition concerning delayed adjudication.

2.2 The Court noted that, by the Supreme Court's order dated 02 May 2025, courts have been required to defer consideration of the issue of delayed adjudication till disposal of the said special leave petition.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Court held that, given the Supreme Court's specific direction to defer consideration of the issue of delayed adjudication, it would not be appropriate for it, in writ jurisdiction, to adjudicate upon that issue at this stage.

2.4 The Court reasoned that, in cases where orders-in-original have already been passed, delayed adjudication is not the only ground of challenge; if that ground were to fail, petitioners would still wish to agitate other grounds on merits.

2.5 The Court observed that it may not be possible or appropriate, in writ jurisdiction, to examine all such additional grounds on merits, whereas the appellate authority would be better placed to consider all grounds, including delayed adjudication, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings.

2.6 For consistency with its earlier order in a comparable matter, and to align with the Supreme Court's directions, the Court adopted the same course of relegating petitioners to the appellate remedy instead of deciding the issue of delay itself.

Conclusions

2.7 The petitions relating to cases where orders-in-original had been passed were disposed of by granting liberty to file statutory appeals against the orders-in-original, with express liberty to raise all permissible contentions, including delayed adjudication, before the appellate authority.

2.8 The Court itself did not decide the issue of delayed adjudication, leaving it to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law and in light of the Supreme Court's order dated 02 May 2025 and subsequent orders in the pending special leave petition.

Issue 2: Treatment of limitation where writ petitions were bona fide pursued instead of statutory appeals

Interpretation and reasoning

2.9 The Court recorded the petitioners' statement that they would file appeals within six weeks from the date of uploading of the order, complying with all prescribed formalities including pre-deposit.

2.10 Recognising that the petitioners had bona fide pursued writ remedies before the Court, the Court considered that penalising them on limitation for having taken that course would be inappropriate.

Conclusions

2.11 The Court directed that, if appeals are filed within six weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall dispose of such appeals on their own merits without adverting to the issue of limitation.

2.12 The appellate authority was directed, while hearing such appeals, to take cognisance of the Supreme Court's order dated 02 May 2025 in respect of the issue of delayed adjudication.

Issue 3: Directions in cases where adjudication is still pending and orders-in-original are yet to be passed

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.13 The Court referred to the Supreme Court's order dated 02 May 2025 requiring that the issue of delayed adjudication be kept in abeyance until the special leave petition (concerning delayed adjudication) is decided.

2.14 The Court also referred to its own prior approach in similar matters where adjudication was pending, under which parties were relegated to seek deferment from the adjudicating authority in light of the Supreme Court's order.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.15 Given that final determinations on delayed adjudication are sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Court considered it appropriate not to interfere directly in the pending adjudication proceedings on that ground.

2.16 The Court held that the proper course is for the petitioners to apply to the adjudicating authority itself for deferment of proceedings, which authority must then decide such applications consistent with the Supreme Court's directions.

Conclusions

2.17 The petitions in which adjudication orders had not yet been issued were disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to apply to the adjudicating authority for deferment of adjudication proceedings on the ground of delayed adjudication.

2.18 The adjudicating authority was directed to consider such applications in the light of the Supreme Court's order dated 02 May 2025 and to take appropriate decisions thereon.

Issue 4: Scope of examination of merits and delayed adjudication by the Court

Interpretation and reasoning

2.19 The Court explicitly stated that it was not examining the merits of the parties' disputes or the contention regarding delayed adjudication, in view of the pending consideration of that issue before the Supreme Court and the availability of statutory forums competent to decide all issues.

2.20 The Court emphasised that all contentions, both on merits and regarding delayed adjudication, should remain open to be urged before the appellate authority (for completed adjudication) or the adjudicating authority (for pending adjudication), subject to the parameters set by the Supreme Court's order.

2.21 The Court also stressed the need for consistency with its earlier orders in similar matters and with the overarching directions of the Supreme Court, which guided its choice not to render any findings on the substantive disputes.

Conclusions

2.22 The Court declined to adjudicate on the merits of the disputes or to decide the issue of delayed adjudication, expressly leaving all such contentions open for consideration by the appropriate statutory authorities in accordance with law and subject to the Supreme Court's directions.

2.23 All interim applications were held to have become infructuous and were disposed of consequent upon the disposal of the writ petitions.

---