'HC must record findings on points raised in a case'

New Delhi, Oct 8: Disapproving the tendency of dismissal of cases without considering the contentions, the Supreme Court has ruled that high court must record its findings on all the contentions raised by a petitioner while deciding the case.

The bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta, while setting aside the judgement of Punjab and Haryana high court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants Narinder Singh and others even without issuing notices to the state, remanded the case back to the high court with a request to decide the writ application as early as possible preferably by December 31.

The petitioners had challenged the order of discharge passed against them denying them the benefit of Rule 3.8 of the Police Training College Manual, according to which the petitioners were entitled to four opportunities to qualify while their services have been terminated only after giving them two chances.

Other contentions raised by the petitioners were that they were not even allowed to complete their one year training and the first exam was conducted only after nine months by the state of Haryana.

The sufficient time was not granted even when examination was conducted for the second time. Earlier also, many opportunities were granted to other candidates to pass the examination but discharging the petitioners only after two chances is illegal and arbitrary.

The last plea was that course was lengthy and there were no instructors to teach law subjects.

The Apex court in its judgement dated September 27 ruled,''A bare reading of the high court's order shows that it did not consider the various stands of the appellants. It also did not mention that no other point except relating to Rule 3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. Had it been so, the grievance of the appellants would have been without any basis. But the high court did not even refer to various stands taken by the appellants.''

''It was open to the high court to discard the plea but to restrict consideration to one point and not to others was certainly not permissible course. It may be as contended by learned counsel for the state that different pleas as raised are without any substance. But that should have been clearly indicated in the impugned order. That having not done so, we set aside the order of the high court and remand the case to it for a frssh disposal in accordance with law.

UNI