ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK V. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS C.A NO. 11337-1138:

DATE: 03/09/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

FACTS:

The case arose from proceedings before the Telangana High Court, where respondents no.4 and 5 had filed a writ petition challenging certain actions. Their request for an interim stay was refused by the Single Judge. Against this, they filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench. Instead of confining itself to the issue of interim relief, the Division Bench called for the writ petition itself and decided it along with the writ appeal. This common judgment dated 03.10.2024 effectively disposed of both matters.

The appellants, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, challenged this before the Supreme Court. They argued that the High Court had acted irregularly by deciding the writ petition along with the writ appeal, despite the writ petition never being placed before that Bench. They further contended that such action violated judicial propriety, since the same court cannot decide both the original writ petition and the appeal against that order, unless properly assigned by the Chief Justice.

ISSUES:

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court acted without jurisdiction and in violation of judicial norms by calling for and deciding the writ petition along with the writ appeal, thereby expanding the scope of the appeal beyond the question of interim relief.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2024 of the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the writ petition to its original file and number. It directed that the parties may approach the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court for assignment of the matter to an appropriate Bench. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court held that there was a grave irregularity in the manner in which the High Court dealt with the matter. A writ appeal, confined only to the refusal of interim relief, could not have been expanded by the Division Bench to take up the writ petition itself. The writ petition was not originally before that Bench, and calling it for disposal was wholly impermissible. Such an action directly undermined the authority of the Chief Justice of the High Court, who alone has the prerogative to assign matters to particular Benches.

Further, the Court emphasized the principles of judicial propriety and fairness. It stated that the same Court cannot simultaneously decide the writ petition and the writ appeal arising from that petition, as this creates a conflict and erodes the very foundation of appellate review. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s approach violated the separation of original and appellate jurisdiction, which is essential to maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings. By correcting this irregularity, the Court reaffirmed the importance of procedural discipline and the necessity of adhering to established norms of judicial functioning.

ANALYSIS:

This decision of the Supreme Court underscores the centrality of judicial propriety and the structural discipline that must guide High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction. By setting aside the impugned judgment, the Court highlighted that the appellate framework cannot be diluted by expanding the scope of proceedings beyond their permissible limits. The Division Bench’s act of calling for and deciding the writ petition alongside the writ appeal not only transgressed jurisdictional boundaries but also undermined the prerogative of the Chief Justice in assigning cases. Such procedural irregularities, if allowed to stand, could set a precedent where benches assume powers not vested in them, thereby destabilizing the orderly functioning of the judicial system.

The ruling also reaffirms the principle that fairness in adjudication is not confined to substantive outcomes but extends equally to the manner in which cases are heard and decided. The Court’s insistence on maintaining the separation between original and appellate jurisdictions serves as a reminder that judicial discipline is foundational to the credibility of adjudicatory processes. By restoring the writ petition to its original position and directing proper reassignment, the Supreme Court not only corrected an individual wrong but also reinforced systemic safeguards to preserve institutional integrity. This case therefore reflects the Court’s broader commitment to upholding procedural fairness as an indispensable aspect of justice.