Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1041/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1041 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7941 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7692 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1041 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
KESARIBEN
MANSUKHBHAI WD/O TROLLEY MAN - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MRS
VASAVDATTA BHATT for the Appellants.
Mr.D.P.Vora, for the
Respondent.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 01/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Ms.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.Y.V.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. Today, only Civil Application has been listed. Learned
counsel for the parties stated that Civil Application as well as
Letters Patent Appeal both should be decided together today itself.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have
taken this Appeal for final disposal. Learned counsel for the
appellants Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt has urged that the learned Single
Judge while adjourning the matter to 21st July, 2011, has directed
the appellants to deposit the amount of provident fund, gratuity,
leave encashment and family pension which is payable to the widow of
Mansukhbhai, Ex-Trolleyman. She has urged that without assigning
reasons, such an order cannot be passed, that too, by interim order
without deciding the writ petition finally. We find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that by way of
interim relief, final relief cannot be granted.
2. The
Apex Court in State of U.P. & Others V/s. Ram Sukhi Devi,
(2005) 9 SCC 733 wherein in paragraph 8, has clearly held that
final relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief. Paragraph 8
of the aforesaid decision is extracted below :-
“To say
the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief
sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim
measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to
why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether
the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition
has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ
petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the
final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage.
The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed
with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be
ignored. 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 a prima
facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the
balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other
considerations. [See Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West
Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of
Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (1985 (3) SCC 217 at p.224), State
of U.P. and Ors. v. Visheshwar (1995) Supp (3) SCC 590, Bharatbhushan
Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors. (1995
Supp (2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors,
U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education
Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp
(4) SCC 214).] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single
Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted.
Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out
though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore,
set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the
Division Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief
has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons.
Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request
the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this
judgment.”
3. In
view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered opinion that
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.6.2011 by which final
relief has been granted by way of interim relief cannot be
maintained.
4. In
the result, this Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by
the learned Single Judge dated 30.6.2011 in Special Civil Application
No. 7941 of 2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
learned Single Judge with a request to decide the matter afresh
subject to His Lordship’s convenience. In view of the order passed in
Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application does not survive. Rule is
discharged in Civil Application. Interim relief, if any, stands
vacated.
(V.M.SAHAI,J)
(G.B.SHAH,J)
***vcdarji
Top