High CourtSingle Judge2006-09-11Appeal allowed; remitted to High Court for fres...

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. v. DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4058 of 2006

Neutral Citation:2006 S.C.R. Supp. 5

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Judgment Date: 2006-09-11
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the High Court’s order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; remitted to High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Gujarat and Ors.

Respondents

Dilipbhai Shaligram Patil

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Robini
• Hemantika Wahi
• Shivangi

Counsels for Respondents

• Vijay Kumar
• R.N. Singh
• Vishwajit Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

Respondent Dilipbhai Shaligram Patil, a police employee, challenged his discharge by filing a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court. Pending disposal, the High Court’s Single Judge granted an interim order directing reinstatement, effectively placing Patil back in service. The writ petition was eventually dismissed, with the interim relief explicitly stated to be vacated. The Respondent’s Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the High Court on the premise that the interim order had permitted the writ petition. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that interim orders issued during the pendency of proceedings come to an end with the disposal of the substantive matter and cannot be used to confer relief after dismissal. Allowing relief on the basis of an interim reinstatement would prejudice the other party and amount to rewarding the writ petitioner for failure. The judgment cites authorities such as Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board, Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., Union of India v. Narender Singh, and Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar to support this doctrine. Since the High Court did not decide on merits, the Supreme Court remitted the case for fresh consideration on merits, while allowing the appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interim orders end on disposal of the substantive proceeding and should restore the parties to the position they would have been in but for the interim order.
Distinction between quashing of an order and stay of its operation; stay does not erase the order.
Interim reinstatement granted in pendency cannot be treated as substantive relief on final disposal; it should not prejudice the party and cannot reward failure.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the High Court’s interpretation that the interim order ‘allowed’ the writ petition is untenable. Interim orders operate to preserve status quo during pendency and do not decide the case. Once the writ petition is finally disposed of, interim relief must end and relief cannot be granted on that basis. The Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition expressly vacated the interim relief, and allowing relief on that footing would prejudice the other party and reward the writ petitioner for failure. The appellants rely on established jurisprudence (Kanoria Chemicals, Shree Chamundi Mopeds, Union of India v Narender Singh, Union of India v G.R. Prabhavalkar) that interim orders end with substantive disposal and merit must be considered afresh. The appeal thus seeks to set aside the High Court’s order and remand for merits-based adjudication.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents’ counsel supported the High Court’s view that the interim order effectively allowed the writ petition, since reinstatement was granted during pendency and the writ petition was disposed of with the interim relief in place. They argued that such interim relief, if efficacious, has substance and may influence the ultimate disposition. They contended the High Court correctly interpreted the interim order, and the appellate court should not overturn this interpretation without merits-based scrutiny.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors.	[1997] 5 SCC 772	Positive	Cited with approval as authority that interim orders end upon disposal and cannot confer relief beyond that point.
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CS/ Cinod Secretariat, Madras	[1992] 3 SCC 1	Positive	Cited for the distinction between quashing an order and stay of its operation and the effect on interim relief.
Union of India v. Narender Singh	[2005] 6 SCC 106	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that interim relief cannot be the ground for granting relief after final disposal.
Union of India v. G. R. Prabhavalkar and Ors.	[1973] 4 SCC 183	Positive	Cited to illustrate related principles supporting the final remission to merits and not perpetuating interim relief.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. v. DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

\ A ## STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. _v._ ## DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL ## SEPTEMBER 11. 2006 ## B ## [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. JJ.) ( c _Practice and Procedure-Interim order-Respondent-employee filed writ petition challenging his discharge from service-Pending disposal of the petition, interim order passed directing reinstatement of Respondent-Writ petition finally dismissed-Held: The interim order came to an end with final disposal of the petition-Mereiy because pursuant to the interim order reinstatement had been done, the High Court could not have subsequently granted relief to Respondent by allowing his appeal-Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration on merits._ D Respondent filed writ petition questioning his discharge from service. Pending disposal of the petition, Single Judge of High Court passed interim order in favour of Respondent directing his reinstatement. But finally the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition clearly indicating that the interim reliefs stood vacated because of the same. Review application against the said E final order was dismissed. Respondent filed Letters Patent·Appeal which the High Court allowed keeping in view the interim order passed earlier, holding that thereby the Single Judge of High Court had allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. • Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: I. It is well settled that an order granted pending disposal of the writ petition/suit or other proceedings, comes to an end with the disposal of the substantive proceedings and that it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim G[orders ][of ][the Court. Any ][other ][view would result in the act ][or ][order ][of ][the ] Court prejudicing the party for no fault of his and Wlluld also mean rewarding the writ petitioner inspite of his failure. Any such unjust consequence cannot be countenanced by the Court. Merely because an interim order had been passed pursuant to which reinstatement had been done, that cannot be a ground for allowing relief. [882-D-E; 883-AI 880 H r a.. STATE OF GUJARATv. DILIPBHAI SHALi GRAM PATIL [PASA YAT,J.] 881 _i_ _Kanoria Chemicals and Industries ltd._ v. _U.P. State Electricity Board_ A _and Ors.,_ (199715 SCC 772; _Shree Chamundi Mopeds ltd._ v. _Church ofSouth India Trust Association CS! Cinod Secretariat, Madras,_ fl 9921 3 SCC I and _Union of India_ v. _Narender Singh,_ 120051 6 SCC I 06, relied on. _Union of India_ v. _G.R. Prabhavalkar and Ors.,_ f19731 4 SCC 183, referred to. 2. The order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. Since the High Court has not dealt with the matter on merits, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. 1883-DI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4058 of2006. C From the Judgment and Order dated 8. 12.2004 of the High Court of Gujarat in L.P.A. No. 2475/2004. Robini, Hemantika Wahi and Shivangi for the Appellants. D Vijay Kumar, R.N. Singh and Vishwajit Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. L.eave granted. E Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary because the High Court's order on the face of it is unsustainable. Respondent filed the writ petition questioning the order of discharge passed by the Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara by order dated 23. I 1.1993. Civil Special F Application I 346 was filed by the respondent on 30. I I.I 993. On the said date notice was issued on the application and was made returnable on 10.12.1993. Reply was filed by the appellant-State on 16.12.1993. On I I. I. I 994 an interim order was passed directing reinstatement of the respondent pending disposal of the petition. Finally the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 31.3.2004. It was clearly indicated in the order that the interim reliefs stood vacated. Subsequently, the review application was filed which was dismissed on I 3.9.2004. Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal 2475 of 2004 which was allowed. The High Court's conclusions _inter a/ia_ are as follows: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully 882 \ A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. perused the speaking order of admission and interim order dated 11.1.1994 passed by S.M. Soni, J. (as he then was), this petition was . required to be allowed. In fact, by an interim order, the learned Single Judge has been particularly allowed the writ petition." Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's view B is clearly untenable and interim order passed loses effect after final disposal of the writ petition. Merely because an interim order had been passed earlier that High Court could not have concluded that by the interim order learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition. In fact, in the present case learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition clearly noted that the interim C reliefs stood vacated because of the dismissal of the writ petition. \ Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the High Court. It is well settled thi:t an order granting pending disposal of the writ D petition/suit or other proceedings, comes to an end with the disposal of the substantive proceedings and that it is the duty of the Co4rt in such a case to put the parties in the same position, they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing the party for no fault of his and would also mean rewarding writ petitioner in spite of his failure. Any such unjust consequence E cannot be countenanced by the court. [See _Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd_ v. _UP. State Electricity Board and Ors.,_ [1997] 5 SCC 772]. The position was also highlighted in _Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd._ v. _Church of South India Trust Association CS/ Cinod Secretariat, Madras,_ (1992] 3 SCC I. It was _inter alia_ noted as follows:- F G H _"While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order ur1der-chollenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed The stay of operation of an order do<:s not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence._ " _(Italics_ for emphasis) r STATEOFGUJARATv. DlLIPBHAl SHALIGRAM PATIL [PASAYAT, .l.)883 ' Merely because an interim order had been passed pursuant to which A reinstatement had been done, that cannot be a ground for allowing relief. (See _Union of India_ v. _Narender Singh,_ [2005] 6 SCC I 06. _f._ The position was also noted in _Union of India_ v. _G. R. Prabhava/kar and Ors .._ [ l 973] 4 SCC 183 as follows: B ''Mr. Singhvi, !earned Counsel, then referred us to the fact that after the judgment of the High Court the State Government has passed an order on March 19, 1971, the effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade in, of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been C passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous." D The order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. Since the High Court has not dealt with the matter on merits, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to E costs. 8.8.B. Appeal allowed.