Holding

An interim order pending disposal of a writ petition ceases to have effect upon final disposal, and cannot be the basis for granting relief thereafter.

Summary

The respondent, a railway employee, challenged his discharge by filing a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court. The Single Judge issued an interim order reinstating him pending disposal of the petition, but later dismissed the writ petition, expressly stating that the interim relief stood vacated. A review was dismissed and the respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which the High Court allowed on the basis that the interim order meant the writ petition had been allowed. The Supreme Court held that an interim order granted pending disposal of a writ petition ceases to have effect upon final disposal and the parties must be placed as if the interim order never existed. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. The appeal was allowed, without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether an interim order granting reinstatement pending disposal of a writ petition continues to have effect after the final disposal of the petition.
Whether the High Court could treat the writ petition as allowed on the basis of the earlier interim order.

Subjects

interim orderwrit petitionreinstatementdischarge from serviceletters patent appealinterim relief vacatedSupreme CourtHigh Courtremandadministrative lawservice law

Judgment

\

A STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
v.
DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL

SEPTEMBER 11. 2006

B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. JJ.)
(

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
c 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 r
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
orders of the Court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the
G
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 a..
~

H 880
STATE OF GUJARATv. DILIPBHAI SHALi GRAM PATIL [PASA YAT,J.] 881

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. B
i
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 I346 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
I3.9.2004. 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
\
A 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
"While considering the effect of an interim order staying the r
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
G 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)
H
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 I06.

The position was also noted in Union of India v. G. R. Prabhava/kar
and Ors.. [ l 973] 4 SCC 183 as follows:
f.
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.

'