High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Buddhu Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 56444 of 2006  RD-AH 17592 (12 October 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56444 of 2006.
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 28th September, 2006, which is interlocutory in nature, whereby only the interim order dated 3rd July, 2006 has been vacated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of staying the interim order, which has already been granted, should not have been passed by the Additional Commissioner.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in 1992 (1) J.T., 571 - U.P. Junior Doctor's Action Committee & others Vs Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani & others, the authorities in exercise of jurisdiction at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted. The Apex Court has held as under :-
"It is a well-known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the mater is not granted. The writ petitioners wanted admission into post-graduate course as the main relief in the writ petition. To have it granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarrassing situation crops up. If he has by then read for two to three years, there is a claim of equity raised on the plea that one cannot reverse the course of time. In a case of this type equities should not be claimed or granted. Taking an overall picture of the matter we are of the view that unless there is any special reason to be indicated in clear terms in an
interlocutory order s a rule no provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical courses."
The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, reported in [(2005) 1 UPLBEC, 1 has held, which read thus :-
"Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations."
In view of what has been stated above, the order impugned in the present writ petition does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the Sub-Divisional Officer has already cancelled the Patta granted in favour of the petitioner in which the Additional Commissioner during the pendency of revision has initially granted interim order and ultimately dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.
In this view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.