# STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. SHAMLAL MURARI & ANR

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 82
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1415 of 1975
- **Bench:** V. R. KRISHNA lYER, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-and-another-v-shamlal-murari-anr-6558
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Letters Pate11t Appeals under c/au~e 10-The Punjab and Haryana High
Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5 Chapter 2-C-Ru/e 3-Core or esse11ce of the
Rule-Rule is 11ot ma11datory for the purposes of e11tertaini11g t/1e Leffers Patent
Appeal-Breach of the Rule is only an irregularitY-lnterference, by the Court
of Appeal with the discretionary exercise of power should be exceptional and
011ly when there is somet/1i11g perverse or irrational in the exercise of that power.
Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C, Vol. 5 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Rules and Orders reads as follows :
"R. 3 : No appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be received
by the Deputy Registrnr unless it is accompanied by three typed copies
of the following :
(a) Memorandum of appeal;
(b) Judgment appealed from, and
( c) Paper book which was before the Judge from whose judgment the
appeal is preferred."
While construing the said ru.le, the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
•
•
High Court in JJikram Das v. The Fi11a11cial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab,
~
. C/wndigarh and others, A.LR. 197 5 Punjab and Haryana 1, held that Rule 3
relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory.
The appellant-State while preferring the Letters Pa!ent Appeal against the
orders of the single Judge holding in favour of the respondent that the denial
of increments and certain o!her benefits for failure to pass departmental test
for which exemption has been granted to him as bad, filed copies of all the
three documents referred to in Rule 3 relating to Letters Patent Appeal, but
not three copies of each an_d with an application for condonation of delay.
The Court refused to entertain the appeal (i) following Bikram Dass case for
non-compliance of Rule 3, and (ii) declining to exerdse its discretion as regards
!he extension of the period of limita,tion and condonation of delay.
On appeal, by Special Leave, the State contended :
(i) that the ratio in Bikram Das's case of the Full Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court holding that Rule 3 relating to entertaining of Letters
Patent Appeals as mandatory was wrong.
(ii) Reluctance to exercise the discretionary power to condone the delay
and extend the period of limitation was not proper, and
(iii) Denial of the increments and other benefits to a Government servant
for failure to pass the departmental test in spite of exemption having
been
granted to him, was not bad in law.
Dismhsing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: (1) The contention that the failure to pass the departmental test
by the Government servant concerned after having been put in more than two
decades of service cannot stand in the way of his enjoying the benefits of
increments etc., particularly, because he had been accorded exemption, is not
correct. [84 G.]
(2) It is true that Rule 3 of the Leitem Patent Appeal of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court Orders and Rules, Vol. 5, Chapter 2-C, in form, strikes a
•
\
PUNJAB v. SHAMLAL (Krishna Iyer, !.)
83:
mandatory note and, in design, is intended to facilitate plurality of Judges·
hearing the appeal, equipped with a set of relevant papers. May be, there is
force in the view,. that certain basic records must be before the Court along
with the appeal if the Court is to function satisfactorily in the exercise of its
appellate power. Jn this sense, the needs of the Rule transcend the directory
level and may perhaps be considered a mandatory need. [85 D-EJ .•
il
(3) Even taking a stern view, every minor detail in Rule 3 cannot carry
'
, a compulsory or imperative import. Three copies would certainly be a greater
advantage, but what is the core of the matter is not the numher but the presence;
and the over emphasis on three copies is mistaken. Perhaps, the Rule requires
three copies and failure to comply therewith may be an irregularity.
What is
of the essence of Rule 3 is not that three copies should b.e furnis~ed, but that
copies of all the three important documents referred to ·in that rule shall be
produ.:ed.
The Court, if it th

## Text

iB
•
E
:F
H
82
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
v.
SHAMLAL MURARI & ANR,
October 6, 1975
[V. R. KRISHNA lYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
Letters Pate11t Appeals under c/au~e 10-The Punjab and Haryana High
Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5 Chapter 2-C-Ru/e 3-Core or esse11ce of the
Rule-Rule is 11ot ma11datory for the purposes of e11tertaini11g t/1e Leffers Patent
Appeal-Breach of the Rule is only an irregularitY-lnterference, by the Court
of Appeal with the discretionary exercise of power should be exceptional and
011ly when there is somet/1i11g perverse or irrational in the exercise of that power.
Rule 3 of Chapter 2-C, Vol. 5 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Rules and Orders reads as follows :
"R. 3 : No appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be received
by the Deputy Registrnr unless it is accompanied by three typed copies
of the following :
(a) Memorandum of appeal;
(b) Judgment appealed from, and
( c) Paper book which was before the Judge from whose judgment the
appeal is preferred."
While construing the said ru.le, the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
•
•
High Court in JJikram Das v. The Fi11a11cial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab,
~
. C/wndigarh and others, A.LR. 197 5 Punjab and Haryana 1, held that Rule 3
relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory.
The appellant-State while preferring the Letters Pa!ent Appeal against the
orders of the single Judge holding in favour of the respondent that the denial
of increments and certain o!her benefits for failure to pass departmental test
for which exemption has been granted to him as bad, filed copies of all the
three documents referred to in Rule 3 relating to Letters Patent Appeal, but
not three copies of each an_d with an application for condonation of delay.
The Court refused to entertain the appeal (i) following Bikram Dass case for
non-compliance of Rule 3, and (ii) declining to exerdse its discretion as regards
!he extension of the period of limita,tion and condonation of delay.
On appeal, by Special Leave, the State contended :
(i) that the ratio in Bikram Das's case of the Full Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court holding that Rule 3 relating to entertaining of Letters
Patent Appeals as mandatory was wrong.
(ii) Reluctance to exercise the discretionary power to condone the delay
and extend the period of limitation was not proper, and
(iii) Denial of the increments and other benefits to a Government servant
for failure to pass the departmental test in spite of exemption having
been
granted to him, was not bad in law.
Dismhsing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: (1) The contention that the failure to pass the departmental test
by the Government servant concerned after having been put in more than two
decades of service cannot stand in the way of his enjoying the benefits of
increments etc., particularly, because he had been accorded exemption, is not
correct. [84 G.]
(2) It is true that Rule 3 of the Leitem Patent Appeal of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court Orders and Rules, Vol. 5, Chapter 2-C, in form, strikes a
•
\
PUNJAB v. SHAMLAL (Krishna Iyer, !.)
83:
mandatory note and, in design, is intended to facilitate plurality of Judges·
hearing the appeal, equipped with a set of relevant papers. May be, there is
force in the view,. that certain basic records must be before the Court along
with the appeal if the Court is to function satisfactorily in the exercise of its
appellate power. Jn this sense, the needs of the Rule transcend the directory
level and may perhaps be considered a mandatory need. [85 D-EJ .•
il
(3) Even taking a stern view, every minor detail in Rule 3 cannot carry
'
, a compulsory or imperative import. Three copies would certainly be a greater
advantage, but what is the core of the matter is not the numher but the presence;
and the over emphasis on three copies is mistaken. Perhaps, the Rule requires
three copies and failure to comply therewith may be an irregularity.
What is
of the essence of Rule 3 is not that three copies should b.e furnis~ed, but that
copies of all the three important documents referred to ·in that rule shall be
produ.:ed.
The Court, if it thinks it neceS'3itous, exercise its discretion and
grant further time for formal compliance with the Rule, if the copies fall short
of the requisite number. Where· the non-compliance, though procedural, will
.
thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the Rule is manda-
., ,
tory. If the breach can be corrected ·without injury to a just disposal of a case,
regulatory requirement .should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum.
Sin:e courts are -to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities,
even what is ,regarded as mandatory traditionally mav. perhaps have to be moderated into wholesome directions to be complied with in time or in extended
time. [85 F-HJ.
. Jn the present case, as copies of all the three documents prescribed have
been furnished, but not three copies of each, the omission or default is only a
breach which can be characterised as an irregularity to be corrected on app!ica- ·
tion by the party fulfilling the condition within time allowed by the Court. To
this extent, the view taken by the Punjab High Court in Bikram Dm's case is
not correct. [86 B-C].
i
· Bikram Das v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh
and Ors.; A.J.Jl. 1975 Pmijab & Haryana 1, over-ruled partly.
B
G
. J)1
( 4) Dhcretionary exercise of power by a Court can be interfered with by
a Court of Appeal only when there is something perverse or irrational in the
E.
cxer:is~. ln the instant case, there being nothing perverse or irrational, the
reluctance in interfering at the appellate level by the High Cou.rt by declining
to exercise its discretion in condoning the delay in compliance with Ruk 3
of tbe Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders and Rules, Vol. 5, Chapter 2-C
is normal and proper. [86 D'-E].
OBfTER:
fo) Passing petty tests after a petrifying length of dull official service
F
-'
is an odd insisrenee except in important levels of work. (84 GJ.
•
). ;
(b) The use of "shall''..!...a work of slippery semantics-in a rule is not
decisive and the conteKt of the statute, the purpose of the prescription, the public inju.ry in the event of neglect of the rule and the
conspectus of circumstances bearing on the importance of the condition are considerations before condemning a violation of a rule as
fatal. (85. E~FJ.
( c) Processual law is r.ct to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction
but an aid td justice. Procedural prrescriptions are the hand-maid and
not the mistress, a. lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of
justice. [85 H, 86 A].
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No.
1415
of
1975.
•
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
11th September, 1974, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 259 of 1974.
G
"
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 2 S.C.R.
Kapil Sibal and 0. P. Sharma, for the Appellants.
V. C. Mahajan a~d Mrs. Urmila Sirur for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. Having granted special leave we have heard
counsel on both sides in this appeal right away on all the points injl
volved-of course, with their coJ,1sent and preparedness.
•
-
The State, the appellant, has urged that the High Court's judgment
is wrong and our conclusion rests on a consideration of three obstacles
in the way of the appellant which we now proceed to dispose of. The
facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are minimal and emerge
from the brief, though sufficient, discuss.ion that follows.
Brevity is
not inconsistent with clarity and prolixity is not· always or ever a
virtue.
The first fatal objection to the Government's cali.e stated in the
order of the High Court, is the ratio in a Full Bench decision in Bikram
Das v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab~ Chandigarh and
Ors.,(')
which holds that rule 3 relating to filing of Letters Patent
Appeals is mandatory which, in this instance, has not been complied
with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
The second
obstacle in the way of the appellant is that assuming that r. 3 is directory-cum-discretionary, an application for
condonation of delay in
compliance with r. 3 had been made and the High Court, in division
Bench, had declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellant. The reluctance in interfering, at the appellate level, with the
exercise of the discretion by the High Court is natural and proper. The
third point, which is the substantive one on the merits, is as to whether
it is just and legal that a Government servant, who has put in 22 long
and languishing years of service, should be denied increments
and
certain other benefits. for failure to pass departmental tests for which
exemption had been granted to him.
The learned single Judge had
held that the failure to pass the departmental test should not be a bar
to the drawal of the benefits, and since the letters patent appeal was not
entertained on the procedural ground we have indicated above, that
question did not fall for decision.
Right away, we may indicate that we· are not impressed with the
State's contention that the failure to pass the departmental test by the -
Government servant concerned, after having put in more than two
decades of service cannot stand in the way of his enjoying the benefits •
of increments, etc., particularly because he had been accorded exemption. Passing petty tests after a petrifying length of dull official service
is an odd insistence except in important levels of work.. That apart,
we. see no reason to differ from the learned single Judge's finding on
this matter. That should put the lid on this appeal but the concern
of the State is to set right the law regarding rule 3 above mentioned.
Counsel for the State contends that a large number of appeals will
be affected by the interpretation of r. 3 of the Punjab & Haryana High
(1) A. I. R. 1975 Punjab & Haryana I.
.•
>
\ •
.;-
PUNJAB v. SHAMLAL (Krishna Iyer, !.)
85
Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5, Chap 2-C by the Full Bench in
Bikram Dass (supra). What is pressed before us is that_r. 3 which
requires, in terms, that three typed copies of (a) the me;morandum .of
appeal, (b) judgment appealed from, and (c) the paper book which
was before the Judge from whose judgment the appeal is preferred, is
not mandatory, although· the Full Bench has chosen to hold that it is
obligatory to comply with them if the appeal is to be entertained at
all.
We do not agree that this fatal consequence should necessarily
follow even if there is a minor deviation in fulfilling the requirements
of r. 3.
It is appropriate at this stage to extract r. 3 which runs as
follows:-
"3. No appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent
· will be received by' the Deputy Registrar unless it is accompanied by three typed copies of the following:-
(a) Memorandum of appeal;
(b) Judgment appealed from, and
(c) Paper book which was before the Judge from whose
judgment the appeal is preferred."
It is true that, in form, the rule strikes a ma\.1datory note and,
in design, is intended to facilitate a pluarlity of judges hearing the appeal, each equipped with a set of relevant papers. May be,. there is
force in the view taken by the Full Bench that certain basic records
mμst be before the Court along with the appeal if the Court is to fnncA
B
c
D
tfon satisfactorily in the exercise of its appellate power. In this sense,
E
the. needs of the rule transcend the. directory level and may, perhaps,
be considered a mandatory need. The use of 'shall' _;a word of slippery semantics-in a rule is not decisive and the context of the statute
the purpose of the prescription, the public injury in the event of neglect
of the rule and the conspectus of the circumstances bearing on the
importance of the condition; have all to be considered before condemning a violation as fatal.
F
It is obvious
that even taking a stem view, every minor detail
in r. ~ cann?t carry a compulsory ?r imperative import. After all,
what is requtred for the Judges to dispose of the appeal is the memorandum of appeal plus the judgment and the paper book. Three copies
would certainly be a great advantage, but what is the core of the matter
is not the number but the presence, and the over-emphasis laid by the
Court on three copies is, we think, mistaken. Perhaps, the rule requires three copies and failure to comply therewith may be an irregu-·
larity. Had no copy been furnished of any one of the three items, the
result might have been different. In the present case, copies of all the
three documents prescribed, have been furnished but not three copies
of each. This omission or default is only a breach which can be
characterised as an irregularity to be corrected by condonation on application by the party fulfilling the condition within a time allowed by
the Court. We must always remember that processual law is not to
be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.
Where the non-compliance, tho'
procedural,
will
thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is
mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a
regulatory requirement into a
dominant desideratum.
After, all
Courts are to do justice,. not to wreck this end _product on technicalities. Viewed in this perspective, even what is regarded as mandatory
traditionally may, perhaps, have to be modera!ed into
wholesome
directions to be complied with in time or in extended time. Be that
as it may, and ignoring for a moment the exploration of the true office
of procedural conditions, we have no doubt that what is of the essence
of r. 3 is not that three copies should be furnished, but that copies of
all the three important documents referred to in that rule, shall be produced. We further feel that the Court should, if it thinks it necessitous, exercise its discretion and grant further time for formal compliance with the rule if the copies fall short of the requisite number.
In
this view and to the extent indicated, we over-rule the decision in
Rikram Dass's (supra) case.
The State has- yet another hurdle in its walY.
In the present case,
an application for condonation of delay in filing the three copies required by r. 3 was made and the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, held that such condonation should not be granted.
Discretionary
exercise of power by a Court cannot be lightly interfered with by a
Court of appeal,_ and we are loathe, therefore, to upset the order of the
High Court declining to condone the delay, there being nothing perverse or irratid11al in the exercise.
In this view also, the appcflant has
to lose.
For jhese reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
There
will be no order as to costs.
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.
; 1.
..
'.
\