Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vijtendra Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 731 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1501 (15 June 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 10

Special Appeal No. 731 of 2005

Vijtendra Kumar Gupta   Vs.     State of U.P. and others


Hon'ble A.K. Yog  J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J

Heard Sri R.K. Ojha Advocate representing the appellant and Sri Brij Raj Singh Advocate on behalf of respondent no.6 as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1to 5.

This Special Appeal has been filed by the Secretary of Committee of management of Post Graduate College at Etah against interim order passed by learned single Judge dated 5.5.2005 in Civil Misc. Wit Petition No. 43463 of 2005 Umesh Chand Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby learned single Judge has stayed the order dated 5.5.2005 passed by State Government revoking its earlier order dated 3.3.2005(Annexure-5 to the appeal) whereby State Government exercising its power under section 57 of U.P. State University Act 1973 had appointed Authorized Controller in place of Committee of management . Learned counsel representing the respondent no.6 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Special Appeal on the ground that this appeal is not maintainable against the interim order passed by learned Single Judge under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is true that the appeal shall not lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the interim order. However at the same time it is well settled that the Special Appeal shall lie, if the interim order passed has to toppings of finality or amounts to granting relief, which is in the nature of final relief.

It appears from the record that the impugned judgment and order dated 27.5.2005 passed by learned Single Judge contains no reasons and otherwise also the impugned order shows that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the writ petition. On the other hand the appellant claims by filing affidavit in this appeal that after the State Government revoked the appointment of the Authorized Controller the charge has been given to the duly constituted Committee of management as per byelaws and it has started functioning. The appellant therefore, submitted that this Court may pass an order for maintaining status quo and that respondent no.6 and 7 may not enable the Authorized Controller to come back and create situation of status quo ante.

In that view of the matter we direct that the parties shall maintain status quo at it exists today i.e. 15.6.2005. We further direct that the parties may file affidavits and pleadings in compliance of the judgment and order dated 27.5.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition and as directed by leaned single Judge.

Petition be listed on the date fixed. We further request the learned single Judge to decide the petition finally at the admission stage, if possible on the date fixed.

Special Appeal is finally disposed of subject to the above observations.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.