Supreme Court of India
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. versus DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL
- Decided
- 11 September 2006
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 880 · 2006 INSC 594
- Also cited as
- (2006) 8 SCC 72
- AIR 2006 SC 3091
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. L.eave granted.
p. 881, margin D
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 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:
p. 881, margin E
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully 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."
pp. 881–882, margin F
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's view 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 reliefs stood vacated because of the dismissal of the writ petition.
p. 882, margin A
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the High Court.
p. 882, margin C
It is well settled thi:t an order granting 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 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 cannot be countenanced by the court. [See Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd v. UP. State Electricity Board and Ors., [1997] 5 SCC 772].
p. 882, margin C
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:-
p. 882, margin E
"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. "
p. 882, margin F
(Italics for emphasis)
p. 882, margin G
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.
p. 883
The position was also noted in Union of India v. G. R. Prabhava/kar
p. 883
and Ors .. [ l 973] 4 SCC 183 as follows: f.
p. 883
''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
p. 883
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.
p. 883
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to E costs. 8.8.B. Appeal allowed.
p. 883