Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M ADARSH JANTA VIDYALAYA MOHAMMADPUR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Adarsh Janta Vidyalaya Mohammadpur & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 721 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18702 (6 November 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

   COURT NO. 32

Special Appeal No. 721 of 2006

    Committee of Management & others Vs. State of U.P. & others.

                                                   *****

Hon' ble S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This appeal  under the Rules of the Court is directed against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 17.8.2006 granting interim order in Writ Petition No. 40877 of 2006 filed by respondents  no. 1 to 3.

It is contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge by the order impugned in this appeal, granted interim relief without indicating any reason for grant of such order. It is further submitted that the appellant committee of management was elected since last two elections and is managing the institution in question since 2000 effectively and there was no complaint at any point of time about the mismanagement of the institution. However, the writ petitioners, who are arrayed as respondents no. 4 to 6 in this appeal, preferred writ petition no. 4680 of 2005 questioning the validity of the election of the appellant, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 11.7.2005 with the direction that in view of the rival election set up by the parties, the Prescribed Authority shall decide  reference made under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act within one month from the date of receipt of application. His Lordship, while disposing the writ petition, also directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of management of the institution. Consequently, the  appellant continued to manage the institution. The Prescribed Authority, in compliance to this Court's aforesaid order, having heard the parties, decided the reference vide order dated 24.4.2006, wherein he recognized the election of the appellant. The petitioner-respondents, being aggrieved, preferred the aforesaid writ petition wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge granted interim order and directed the Administrator appointed by the Basic Education Officer to manage the institution, though the controversy regarding rival claim of the petitioner-respondent was already decided by the competent authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that in the absence of any reason or indication in the order, the order granting interim relief, cannot be sustained and reliance is  placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. Bindhyawasini Singh & others (Special Appeal No. 1054 of 2006).

It is true that special appeal under the Rules of the Court against any interim order normally does not lie. But where the order grants final relief in terms of the interim order without recording any reason, special appeal can be entertained. It is also settled legal position that even while granting interim order some reason has to be indicated to show as to what weighed in the mind of the Court to grant such relief.

The Apex Court in State of U.P. & others Vs. Modern Transport Company, Ludhiana and another, 2002 (9) SCC 514, held that the interim orders, which in effect, results in granting final relief to the petitioner, the High Court must give reasons in support thereof. Similarly, in Shamsher Singh (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court also observed as under:

"Whenever a substantive relief granting or relief refusing interim order is passed, even if it is intended to hold only for a limited period of time, it is essential for the Hon'ble Single Judge to give short and intelligible reasons as to why his Lordship felt persuaded, prima facie, either to grant the relief or to withhold it, as the case might be. The expression of the Hon'ble Single Judge's mind served at least two important purposes; first the way his Lordship exercised his discretion, becomes known to the Court of appeal and according to the present state of lawe where reliefs are granted or withheld in a substantive way, the court of appeal can almost always be approached. The second important point is that the litigant public, who are always waiting and watching in the wings, will never get the impression that they have been the victim of an arbitrary or capricious order passed by an ordinary court of law."

In this view of the matter, it is difficult for us to uphold the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. We, therefore, following the law as settled by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, allow this appeal, set aside the order impugned in this appeal and remit the matter back to the Hon'ble Single Judge to decide the application of interim relief afresh after hearing all the  parties and in accordance with law.

Dated: 6.11.2006

SA


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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