Elisawa Bhavan (Carelities of Teresian Congregation (CTC), Koonammavu P.O., Kottuvally Panchayath, Kottuvally Village, North Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam, Pin Code 683518) and St. Philominas Edavaka Christava Viswasa Samrakshna Samithi (An Unregistered Group of Persons), represented by Judy V.A, Vakayil House, Pallikadav Road, Koonammavu P.O, Kottuvally Panchaayath, Kottuvally Village, North Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam Dist. v. Shibu Job, DiJu V.M, Martin V.M, Jaimy V.M, Shelly Job Vakayil, Kottuvally Grama Panchayath, The District Collector, The Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, The Sub Inspector of Police, Varapuzha, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, P.C Wilson and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WA.No.777 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 10122/2020(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22.5.2020** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **1 ELISWA BHAVAN (CARELITIES OF TERESIAN CONGREGATION (CTC), KOONAMMAVU P.O, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYAT, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE 683518 2 ST. PHILOMINAS EDAVAKA CHRISTAVA VISWASA SAMRAKSHNA SAMITHI (AN UNREGISTERED GROUP OF PERSONS), REPRESENTED BY JUDY V.A, VAKAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKAADAVU ROAD, KOONAMAVU P.O, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYATH, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN COEE 683518.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.) SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 SHIBU JOB AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.T JOB, PRIVATE COMPANY EMPLOYEE, VAKAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKADAVU ROAD, BALABHAVAN ROAD JUNCTION, KOONAMAVU P.O, PIN CODE 683518, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYAT, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.** _**W.A.777/2020**_ 2 - **2 DIJU V.M, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MANUEL V, BALABHAVAN ROAD JUNCTION, KOONAMAVU P.O, PIN CODE 683518, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYAT, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM** - **3 MARTIN V.M, AGED 56 YEARS BALABHAVAN ROAD JUNCTION, KOONAMAVU P.O, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYAT, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683518** - **4 JAIMY V.M, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MANUEL V, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKADDAVU ROAD, KOONAMAVU P.O, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYAT, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE 683518** - **5 SHELLY JOB VAKAYIL, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.T JOB, BALABHAVAN ROAD JUNCTION, KOONAMAVU P.O, PIN CODE 683518, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYAT, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM** - **6 THE KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN CODE 683518** - **7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE 682 030** - **8 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,FORT KOCHI, PIN CODE 682 002** - **9 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA P.O, PIN CODE 683517** _**W.A.777/2020**_ 3 - **10 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, VARAPUZHA SECTION, VARAPUZHA P.O, PIN CODE 683517, ERNAKULAM** **11 P.C WILSON, AGED 48 YEARS NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN , SECRETARY, KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, PIN CODE 683518 AND HAVING PERSONAL ADDRESS AT PAREKKATTILHOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O, ANGAMALI, PIN CODE 683572** **SRI.M.P RAMNATH FOR R1 TO R5, SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU FOR R7- R9 R6 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R6 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R6 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH R6 BY ADV. SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL R6 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R6 BY ADV. SMT.VAISAKHI V. R6 BY ADV. SRI.SHELLY PAUL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**W.A.777/2020**_ 4 ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 18[th] day of June, 2020 ## S. Manikumar, CJ. Instant writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.5.2020 in W.P(C). No.10122 of 2020. Said writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, North Paravur Taluk, 1[st] respondent, to forthwith remove the gigantic metal arch erected by respondent 6 and 7 at Pallikadavu-Bhalabavan Road Junction and the District Collector Ernakulam, Sub Inspector of Police, Varapuzha Police Station and the Kerala State Electricity Board, Varapuzha Section (respondents 2, 4 & 5 respectively) to render all necessary aid and assistance. Petitioners therein have also sought for an interim relief restraining the 5[th] respondent from doing any alteration of any existing electric lines in connection with the metal arch board of the 6[th] respondent, till the disposal of the writ petition. 2. Short facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows: The grievance is against an illegal heavy metal arch put up by Eliswa Bhavan, Koonammavu, the 6[th] respondent and its henchmen claiming as 7[th] respondent and without any legal, valid approved plan and permit and without complying with any of the statutory requirements and across _**W.A.777/2020**_ 5 the road at the busy and accident prone “T” junction of Pallikadavu Road and Balabhavan Road. Earlier, two times such board was erected illegally was caused to be removed. Now, by the political and religious clout influence and pressure it is again erected for the third time illegally. The official respondents are illegally keeping away from taking due and proper action and removing the illegal metal arch board. Now, what is illegally claimed is that Ext.P24 is the approved permit as required under the Panchayat Building Rules, Panchayat Raj Act as well as various specific bye-laws pertaining to issuance of permit for erection of advertisement board. Ext.P24 is not a valid permit. It is not taxed also. Further, it is 3 times, since the 5[th] respondent has issued Ext.P32 directing the 1[st] respondent to immediately cause removal of the illegal arch board, which is violating the electricity line clearance norms and has only 42 cms clearance in place of the required 2.50 mtrs. Still the officials, colluding with the party respondents are not causing the removal of the illegal arch board in spite of repeated complaints. The petitioners are directly affected persons and petitioners 1 and 2 reside at the junction and the other petitioners reside immediately at the vicinity of the junction. Now illegally and collusively, the effort is to raise the electric line height for accommodating the existing illegal arch board. Appropriate reliefs for removal of the illegal arch board, which is high _**W.A.777/2020**_ 6 handedly put up for the 3[rd] time at the very same accident prone junction of public road, flouting all lows, norms, circulars, rules and directions of this Court in its judgments on the subject, is sought for. 3. Learned Single Judge has passed an interim order at the time of admission itself directing that Exhibit P32 shall not be revoked or altered by the Kerala State Electricity Board, Varapuzha Section, 5[th] respondent or by any higher Authority. Further it was also ordered that Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, North Paravur Taluk,1[st] respondent should take necessary steps to ensure that the directions issued by the 5[th] respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board, as per Ext.P32 letter dated 22.2.2020 is complied with and enforced without much delay. It is also ordered that the said direction will be in force for a period of one month. 4. Instant appeal has been filed inter alia contending that the interim order passed by the writ court is against the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be interfered with. Writ court passed the order, at the admission stage, without hearing the respondents and the real facts could not be brought to notice. Further contention is that the petitioners have purposefully suppressed the facts that the Panchayat had issued a notice directing the private respondents/appellants, to comply with rule 22(5) of the Schedule II of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. It is also the contention of _**W.A.777/2020**_ 7 the appellants that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that if the impugned interim order is complied with by the 1[st] respondent, it will amount to allowing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen that that no order in the nature of allowing the writ petition can be granted as an interim order. But the learned Single Judge erred in granting an interim order in the nature of allowing the writ petition. Writ court has granted an interim order exceeding the prayer for interim relief prayed for by the petitioners. 5. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed with a prayer to vacate the interim directions. The request to take up the writ petition has not been accepted and contempt petition is listed tomorrow for instruction. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Contempt petition has been filed on 6.6.2020, much earlier than the filing of the counter affidavit. The arch constructed contrary to the statutory provisions was removed twice. The authorities are colluding with the appellants. It is also his contention that no petition has been filed to vacate the directions. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Impugned interim order dated 22.5.2020 reads thus: _**W.A.777/2020**_ 8 “Sri.Babu Karukapadath, learned Advocate takes notice for 1[st] respondent, Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 to 4, Sri.A.Arun, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board, takes notice for 5[th] respondent (KSEB). Issue notice to respondents 6 to 8 by speed post, returnable within two weeks. 1[st] respondent-Kottuvally Grama Panchayath, will furnish instructions in this matter through their learned Advocate without any further delay. Sri.M.P.Ramnath, learned counsel for petitioners, seeks for emergent interim relief. Learned counsel appearing for 1[st] respondent seeks time to get instructions. Time granted as above said. In the meanwhile, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that Exhibit P32 shall not be revoked or altered by the 5[th] respondent or by any higher Authority. Further it is also ordered that 1[st] respondent should take necessary steps to ensure that the directions issued by the 5[th] respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board, as per Ext.P32 letter dated 22.2.2020 is complied with and enforced without much delay. The above said direction will be in force for a period of one month. List the matter on 03.06.2020” Interim prayer sought for is to direct the Kerala State Electricity Board, Varapuzha Section, 5[th] respondent therein from doing any alteration of any existing electric lines in connection with the metal arch board of the 6[th] respondent/appellant, pending disposal of the writ petition. _**W.A.777/2020**_ 9 8. Ext.P32 referred to in the interim order is a request made by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Varapuzha, 5[th] respondent to the Secretary, Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, Valluvally, Koonammavu, to remove the Arch Board. A copy has been marked to the 1[st] appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said proceedings has not been challenged. Ext.P32 dated 22.2.2020 reads thus: “KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD No.DB/VPZ/Gnl/2019-20/121 Dated:22-02-2020 To, The Secretary, Kottuvally Grama Panchayath, Valluvally, Koonammavu P.O. Sir, Sub: Erection of the Arch Board under the name and style 'Devadasi Mother Eliswa Vakayil' without maintaining a safe distance between the electric line. Ref: Complaint submitted by Sri.Shibu Job, Vakayil House, Koonammavu. Upon conducting an inquiry on the complaint referred to above, it is understood that the Arch Board which was erected without the permission of the Electricity Board between posts Nos.NH-107/14 and NH-107/15 at Pallikadavu Panchayath Road, Koonammavu, is in violation of the existing electricity laws as it is not maintaining the safe distance between the electric lines. Therefore, it is informed to take necessary steps to remove the said Arch Board. _**W.A.777/2020**_ 10 Yours faithfully, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION VARAPPUZHA Copy to: 1. Asst. Executive Engineer, - Electrical Sub Division, Varappuzha - 2. Mother Eliswa Bhavan, Koonammavu.” 9. Defending the writ petition, a counter affidavit dated 11.6.2020 has been filed with a prayer to vacate the interim order and with a further prayer for a direction to Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Varapuzha, 5[th] respondent therein to dispose of application dated 25.2.2020 filed by the 6[th] respondent/appellant. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R6(a) reply dated 10.3.2020 of the Senior Superintendent Electrical Section, Varapuzha, addressed to the appellant is enclosed. Ext.R6(a) reads thus: ## “KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. (Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956) Reg. Office:Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004, ## Kerala Website:www.kseb.in. CIN:U40100KL2011SGC027424 Office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Varappuzha Varapuzha P.O., Ernakulam (Dt) 683517 Ph-0484 2513040 (O) Cug-9496009018 _**W.A.777/2020**_ 11 ## email-aevpza@gmail.com No.BB/PZA/RIA/2019-20/126 Dated:10-03-2020 To, Judy V.A. Aattethara Vakayil Pallikadavu, Koonammavu. Sir, Subject: Reply – Right to Information Act, 2005. Reference : Your application dated 25-02-2020. The information sought for as per the above reference application, is provided hereunder: In order to provide the copy of the complaint given by Mr.Shibu Job against the arch board erected in the name of Mother Eliswa Vakayil on the Pallikadavu road, Rs.2 per copy has to be remitted. No one has obtained sanction from the electricity board for erecting arch boards. Since sanction of the electricity board is not required for erecting arch boards, whether they have complied with the distance limit has not been looked into. On an enquiry conducted on the basis of the complaint with respect to the said arch board it was found that the minimum distance has not be complied with and hence notice was issued. No one else was found to have violated the distance rule. Now the distance between the said board and the electric line is below 1 metre (42 cm from line below, 76 cm on one side just above it, another _**W.A.777/2020**_ 12 118 cm). As per the prevailing law, there should be an distance of 1.2 metre. If you are not satisfied with the above information you may approach the appellate authority within 30 days. The address of the appellate authority is given below: Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division Varapuzha Sincerely, Senior Superintendent Electrical Section Varapuzha” 10. Ext.R6(C) dated 13.5.2020 and Annexure (1) dated 22.5.2020 are letters addressed to the Assistant Executive engineer, K.S.E.B., Varapuzha, S.O. Varapuzha P.O and the same are extracted below. Ext.R6(C) dated 13.5.2020 reads thus : Date:13-05-2020 To, The Assistant Ext. Engineer K.S.E.B. Varapuzha S.O. Varapuzha P.O. Sir, K.S.E.B. had issued a letter No.DB/VPZ/...../201920/121 dated 22-02-2020, on the basis of the complaint made by Mr.Shibu Jose Vakayil with respect to the arch _**W.A.777/2020**_ 13 board in the name of Mother Eliswa erected on Koonammavu Pallikadavu Road. In order to solve the same, I have submitted an application dated 25-02-2020 for getting an estimate in increasing the height of the electric line. Yesterday evening (12-05-2020) at 3.31, the K.S.E.B. Assistant Engineer, Varapuzha contacted me over phone and demanded Rs.51,624-00 (Rupees Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Four Only) before 4 pm. In the said circumstances, I humbly request your goodself to review and find an alternate remedy in a lower cost. Sincerely Sr.Lawrence Eliswabhavan ## Annexure (1) dated 22.5.2020 reads thus: “Date:22-05-2020 To, The Assistant Ext. Engineer K.S.E.B. Varapuzha S.O. Varapuzha P.O. Sir, K.S.E.B. had issued a letter No.DB/VPZ/...../201920/121 dated 22-02-2020, on the basis of the complaint made by Mr.Shibu Jose Vakayil with respect to the arch board in the name of Mother Eliswa erected on Koonammavu Pallikadavu Road. In order to solve the same, the arch board has been renovated by reducing its height. Thus now the distance between the electric line and top of the arch board is 1 metre. So, it is humbly requested that the issue may be solved either the electric post on the eastern side of the said arch board may be raised to a signifiant height or a new electric post of significant height may be erected next to the arch board. _**W.A.777/2020**_ 14 We are ready to bear the cost for the same. Hence it is humbly prayed that an appropriate remedy may be made in the issue. Sincerely Sr.Lawrence” 11. Annexure(2) is an inquiry report of the Sub-Engineer, Electrical Division, Varapuzha, addressed to the Secretary, Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, Valluvally, Koonammavu, 1[st] respondent therein. It reads thus: “KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. (Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956) Reg. Office:Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004, Kerala Website:www.kseb.in. CIN:U40100KL2011SGC027424 Office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Varappuzha Varapuzha P.O., Ernakulam (Dt) 683517 Ph-0484 2513040 (O) Cug-9496009018 email-aevpza@gmail.com No.DB/VPZ/GENERAL/2020-21/12 Dated:12-06-2020 ## INQUIRY REPORT To, The Secretary, Kottuvally Grama Panchayat Sir, _**W.A.777/2020**_ 15 Subject: Regarding the erection of “Daiva dasi Mother Eliswa Vakayil” arch board without maintaining safe distance from the electric lines. Reference: Letter No.C3-1989/2020 issued by Panchayat dated 11-06-2020. It has been found at the time of inspection that the distance between arch board erected under the electric lines at Pallikadavu Road, Kottuvally Panchayat and the lowest lying electric line is 110 cm. Varappuzha 12-06-2020 Ramesan V.V. Sub Engineer Electrical Section, Varapuzha” 12. By Ext.P32 letter dated 22.2.2020, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Varapuzha has requested the Secretary, Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, Valluvally, Koonammavu P.O., to remove the arch board. Writ petition has been filed for a direction to Secretary, Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, 1[st] respondent therein to forthwith remove the gigantic arch board erected by respondents 6 and 7 therein/appellants and to recover the cost of removal from respondents 6 and 7/appellants. 13. Reading of the interim order shows that when the writ petition came for admission, on 22.5.2020, notice has been ordered to _**W.A.777/2020**_ 16 respondents 6 to 8 therein, by speed post returnable within two weeks. Kottuvally Grama Panchayat, respondent No.1 therein has been directed to get instructions. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought for interim relief. Though notice has been ordered to respondents 6 to 8 therein, to respond to the averments and prayers sought for in the writ petition, on the date of admission itself, writ court has order thus: “In the meanwhile, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that Exhibit P32 shall not be revoked or altered by the 5[th] respondent or by any higher Authority. Further it is also ordered that 1[st] respondent should take necessary steps to ensure that the directions issued by the 5[th] respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board, as per Ext.P32 letter dated 22.2.2020 is complied with and enforced without much delay. The above said direction will be in force for a period of one month. List the matter on 03.06.2020” 14. Writ court has directed that Ext.P32 by which a request has been made to remove the arch board should be complied with and enforced without any delay. Writ court further directed that Ext.P32 shall not be revoked or altered by the 5[th] respondent or by any other authority. By granting such an interim order even without hearing respondents 6 and 7 therein/appellant, writ court has virtually granted _**W.A.777/2020**_ 17 prayer No.1, sought for in the writ petition, at the time of admission itself. If the arch board, as directed by the writ court in the interim order dated 22.5.2020 is removed, then nothing remains in the writ petition to defend. It is a settled position that an interim order, which has the effect of granting the main relief should not be granted, much less without hearing the parties against whom the interim relief is sought for. Reference can be made to few decisions: (i) In Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2004 SC 1975, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 12, held as follows: "Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do _**W.A.777/2020**_ 18 violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent." (ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P v. Ram Sukhi Devi , [(2005) 9 SCC 733] held that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision is extracted hereunder:- "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 _**W.A.777/2020**_ 19 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 _**W.A.777/2020**_ 20 the date of receipt of this judgment." Interim order indicates that no opportunity has been given to the respondents 6 and 7 therein/appellants. As rightly contended, the interim order dated 22.5.2020, is in the nature of allowing the writ petition. In the light of the discussions and decisions, the interim order dated 22.5.2020, is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Writ appeal is allowed. No costs. S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT PREPARED BY THE SUB ENGINEER OF THE VARAPPUZHA ELECTRICAL SECTION NO. DB/VPZ/ GENERAL/2020-21/12 DATED 12-06-2020**