Ms Jaypee Co India Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Department And Anr

$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5011/2024 MS JAYPEE CO INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC along with Ms. Madhavi Shukla and Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.04.2024 1.We note that while dealing with an identical writ petition seeking the framing of out of turn disposal of appeals, we had dismissed WP(C) 4773/2024 recording the following reasons: - “1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “a) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the effect that the respondent no.1 be directed to decide the first appeal as filed by the petitioner on merits and accordingly pass a speaking order thereto. b) Pass such other Writ, Order or Direction or any other Appropriate Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. c) Award costs of the petition in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.” 2. Bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner fails to disclose or assert that the first appeal preferred by the writ petitioner is the oldest pending before the concerned First Appellate Authority, we find no justification to frame a peremptory direction for its out of turn disposal. We must bear in mind that in the absence of adequate details with respect to the status of the board of a particular appellate authority, it would be wholly incorrect for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction and pass directions granting precedence to one matter over the other. It is ultimately for the appellate authority to manage its board bearing in mind the vintage of matters pending before it and structuring hearings accordingly. 3. We also bear in mind the note of caution which stands rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 207] where the Court had noted the deleterious impact that such directions may have. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are culled out hereinbelow:- “41. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to thejudges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of givingout-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to theconcerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for thedisposal of cases should be passed only in exceptionalcircumstances to meet extraordinary situations. 42. There is another important reason for adopting the saidapproach. Not every litigant can easily afford to fileproceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants whocan afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot beallowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directingout-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigantspatiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts,-superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the dayto-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that onlycertain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other.This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.” [Emphasis supplied] [Emphasis supplied] 4. The petition consequently fails and shall stand dismissed. This order, however, shall not preclude the writ petitioner from moving the concerned authority for expeditious disposal.” 2.Accordingly, and following the aforesaid, we dismiss this writ petition subject to rights being reserved in favour of the writ petitioner to pursue any application for expeditious disposal that may have been made. YASHWANT VARMA, J. APRIL 05, 2024/RW PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.