Power Of Remand Can't Be Exercised In Routine Manner, Only When Authority Has Not Considered Material Evidence: Bombay HC Reaffirms
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that power of remand cannot be exercised in a routine manner, and a matter may be remanded only if the original authority has failed to consider a material evidence, where either re-evaluation of evidence is required or wherein parties are to be permitted to lead fresh evidenceThe court further underscored that power of remand in absence of compelling...
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that power of remand cannot be exercised in a routine manner, and a matter may be remanded only if the original authority has failed to consider a material evidence, where either re-evaluation of evidence is required or wherein parties are to be permitted to lead fresh evidence
The court further underscored that power of remand in absence of compelling legal necessity leads to delay in resolving disputes and thus remand should not be ordered when the record is sufficient.
Justice Amit Borkar in his order said:
"The principle is well settled that an order of remand is not to be passed as a matter of routine, and certainly not merely to fill up lacunae in evidence or to re-do what has already been considered. A remand may be warranted only if the original authority has failed to consider a material document, the appreciation of which requires either a reevaluation of evidence or permitting parties to lead fresh evidence...The power of remand, when exercised in absence of compelling legal necessity, leads to avoidable delay in the resolution of disputes. Courts and quasi-judicial authorities are expected to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication in the interest of justice. Remand should not be directed where the record is sufficient for final disposal and no prejudice is caused".
The court thus set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) holding that remitting the matter to the original authority without adjudicating the revision application on merits was improper.
Background
The court was hearing a writ petition challenging the a March 13 order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon, in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act. The matter arose from proceedings for removal of obstruction initiated before the Mamlatdar (section officer).
The Mamlatdar had refused relief to the applicant primarily on the ground that the panchnama–a key piece of evidence–was not properly drawn and did not meet procedural requirements.
The Sub-Divisional Officer while entertaining the revision application filed against Mamlatdar's decision, agreed that the panchnama was defective. But instead of evaluating the legal effect and evidentiary value of the panchnama in the context of the case, and proceeding to adjudicate the revision on its own merits, the revisional authority remitted the matter back to the Mamlatdar thereby deferring adjudication.
Finding
While disagreeing with the approach adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the court said, "In my considered view, this approach adopted by the SubDivisional Officer is legally unsustainable".
"The revisional authority, having recorded a finding on the defectiveness of the panchnama, was under a legal duty to test the merits of the Mamlatdar's order in the light of the other evidence on record, and determine whether the decision suffers from perversity or legal infirmity. Once the panchnama was found to be of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification," the court added.
Observing that the SDO erred in law by passing the remand order, the high court quashed the remand order and restored the revision application on the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon.
"The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the revision application on its own merits, having due regard to the material produced before the Mamlatdar and the findings recorded therein. The parties shall remain present before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon on 13 May 2025 without further notice," the court said adding that the SDO shall endeavour to dispose of the revision application within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of the parties
Case Title: Kapil Satish Phalke & Anr. V/s. The Sub Divisional Officer, Koregaon Sub Division, Koregaon, District Satara & Ors
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.5672 OF 2025
Counsel for petitioners: Advocate Dilip Bodake
Counsel for State: AGP M. S. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondents: Shreyas P. Barsawade