High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Kumar Nigam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2010

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Nigam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2010
                              W. A. No.956/2010

22.09.2010

Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Heard on the question of admission.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single 
Judge in W.P. No.12825/2010 (S), dated 10­9­2010 whereby he has 
observed   that   selection   in   question   shall   be   provisional   and 
subject   to   final   decision   of   the   writ   petition   the   petitioner­
appellant has preferred this intra­court appeal under Section 2(1) 
of   the   M.P.   Uchcha   Nyayalaya   (Khand   Nyaypeeth   ko   Appeal) 
Adhiniyam, 2005 [for brevity `the Act’].

The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   vehemently 
contended that the selection of the appellant is only for a period 
of   one   year   and,   therefore,   in   the   absence   of   interim   order 
restraining the appointment the appellant shall suffer irreparable 
loss.

We are not impressed with the submission for the reason 
that the appeal against an interim order is not maintainable under 
the provisions of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Full 
Bench decision of this Court in  Arvind Kumar Jain vs. State of  
M.P., ILR 2007 (MP) 1017 wherein it has been held as under:

“From   the   aforesaid   enunciation   of   law  
there   remains   no   scintilla   of   doubt   that 
interlocutory   orders   on   certain   circumstances 
could   be   appealed   against   under   the   Letters  
Patent. Despite the fact that they are interlocutory 
in nature they can be put into the compartment of  
judgment   if   it   affects   the   merits   of   the   case 
between the parties by determining some rights or 
liabilities.     There   can   be   three   categories   of  
judgments, final judgment, preliminary judgment  
and   intermediary   judgment   or   interlocutory 
judgment. If the order finally decides the question 
and directly affects the decision in the main case  
or an order which decided the collateral issue or 
the question which is not the subject­matter of the 
main   case   or   which   determines   the   rights   and  
obligation   of   the   parties   in   a   final   way  
indubitably they are appeallable.”

However,   it   would   be   open   to   the   appellant   to   move   an 
application   before   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   the   writ   petition 
itself with the prayer to fix the matter at an early date for early 
hearing   of   the   writ   petition.     Learned   Single   Judge   is,   however, 
requested    that in the  event  such  an application is  filed  by  the 
appellant­petitioner the same may be considered looking to the 
urgency  of the  matter  at an early  date, subject to business  and 
convenience of the Court.

With the above observation the writ appeal is dismissed.

C.c. as per rules by tomorrow.

                            (S.R.Alam)                                        (Alok Aradhe)
                          Chief Justice                                                 Judge 

ac.