JUDGMENT
Re: CAN. No. 3366 of 2007
1. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicants praying for leave to prefer appeal from the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 27125 (W) of 2006.
2. The learned Counsel representing the applicants submits that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge will seriously prejudice the interests of the said applicants although the said applicants were not parties to the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the averments made in this application, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for granting leave to the applicants herein to prefer appeal from the said judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. Accordingly, leave is granted to the applicants herein to prefer appeal from the order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 27125(W) of 2006.
5. This application thus stands allowed.
6. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Re: CAN. No. 3367 of 2007
1. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicants for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal from the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 27125(W) of 2006.
2. Undisputedly, the applicants/petitioners herein were not made parties to the aforesaid writ petition and therefore, the said petitioners are not entitled to prefer any appeal from the said judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 without obtaining specific leave from this Court. The petitioners herein however, presented the memorandum of appeal and filed an application before this Court praying for leave to prefer an appeal in connection therewith. This Court upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties passed an order today granting leave to the petitioners to prefer an appeal from the aforesaid order dated 15th February, 2007.
3. The petitioners herein were not parties to the writ petition which was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 15th February, 2007 and, therefore, the said petitioners could not prefer an appeal in spite of being affected by the said order without obtaining specific leave from the Division Bench of this Court. If any order passed by a learned Single Judge affects the interest of any third party, not impleaded before the said learned Single Judge, then the said affected third party can prefer an appeal challenging the said order only after obtaining specific leave from the Division Bench.
4. As per procedure any application for leave to prefer an appeal is to be filed by the affected third party in connection with and upon presenting the memorandum of appeal. While considering the application for leave to prefer an appeal filed by the affected third party from any order passed by the learned Single Judge, concerned Appeal Court will also be at liberty to consider the issue relating to delay in filing the said application and if the Appeal Court ultimately grants specific leave to prefer an appeal to the affected third party then the period of limitation will start from the day the Division Bench grants such leave to the affected third party to prefer an appeal from a particular order passed by the concerned Single Judge.
5. The period of limitation cannot start in such cases before the Division Bench of this Court grants leave to prefer an appeal, for the simple reason that the affected third party, being a stranger to the proceedings, is not entitled to prefer an appeal from the order in question without obtaining specific leave from this Court. However, following the practice and procedure of this Court, application for leave to prefer an appeal is to be filed by the affected third party upon presenting the memorandum of appeal and therefore, there is no scope and/or possibility of delay in preferring the appeal in the matter where application for leave to prefer an appeal has been filed by the affected parties and ultimately allowed by the Division Bench of this Court.
6. In such cases, therefore, no application for condoning the delay is required to be filed by the affected third party as there is no scope of any delay in presenting the memorandum of appeal. The present one is one of such cases where leave to prefer an appeal has been allowed by this Bench today and since memorandum of appeal was presented by the petitioners herein alongwith the said application for leave to prefer an appeal, there is also no scope of any delay on the part of the petitioners herein in preferring the appeal from the order in question. Therefore, there is no occasion to condone the delay in the present case in absence of any delay.
7. Accordingly, we direct the department to register the memorandum of appeal, if otherwise the same is in order.
8. This application for condonation of delay thus stands disposed of.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
Re: CAN. No. 3368 of 2007
1. This stay application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 27125(W) of 2006.
2. The learned Counsel of the writ petitioners submits that an opportunity should be granted to the writ petitioners to file affidavit in connection with this application.
3. Considering the aforesaid prayer of the learned Counsel of the writ petitioner/respondents, liberty is granted to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition within 4th May, 2007. Reply thereto, if any, is to be filed within 8th May, 2007 and let this application be listed for hearing on 10th May, 2007.
4. The prayer for interim order will be taken into consideration on the next occasion.