STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusSTATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 825
- Decided
- 17 December 1997
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order and disposed of the appeal without addressing the merits.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a Special Leave Petition against an interim order passed by the Gauhati High Court in C.R. No. 4986 of 1997, seeking relief against the State of Nagaland and others. Both parties presented extensive arguments before a two‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the writ petition concerning the same matter had been heard at length and a final judgment was imminent. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the interim order, emphasizing that it would not express any view on the merits and left the matter to the lower court for final determination. The appeal was therefore disposed of without prejudice to the substantive issues.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court should set aside or modify the interim order of the Gauhati High Court pending the pronouncement of the final judgment.
Subjects
Judgment
r~J
'{ I
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH A
v.
STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.
DECEMBER 17, 1997
[SUHAS C. SEN AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B
.~
Constitution of India, 1950 : A1ticle 136
Appeal by Special Leave-Appeal against interim orddr--Jn the
J
meanwhile writ petition also heard at lengt.h-Held, since the judgment was
likely to be pronounced shortly inte1fere11ce with interim order was not called
c
for at this stage.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8858-61
of 1997 Etc.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.97 of the Gauhati High
Court in C.R. No. 4986 of 1997.
Ashok H. Desai, Attorney General of India, A.K. Goel, Adv.
General, Kavin Gulati, Pradeep Misra, R.B. Misra and Kamlendra Misra
for the Appellant. E
Shanti Bhushan, P.K. Goswami, Dr. AM. Singhvi, C.K. Sasi, Kailash
Vasdev, Pradeep Agarwal, N.B. Khatwada, Ms. Pratibha Jain and Goodwill
Indeevar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : F
Leave granted. Although elaborate arguments have been advanced
by the Attorney-General on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the
Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and Mr. Shanti Bhushan
on behalf of the State of Nagaland. We will not go into the merits of the
case at all. We have been informed that the writ petition even al the G
admission stage has been heard at length. The judgment is awaited. This
is only an appeal from an interim order. Since the judgment is going to be
pronounced shortly we are disinclined to interfere with the interim order
passed at this stage. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case. The Court hearing this matter will be H
593
594 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1997}SUPP.6S.C.R.
A entirely free to decide the case in accordance with law. The appeals are
disposed of accordingly.
T.P. Nos. 418-421/97
In view of the above decision in SLP (C) Nos. 21304 07/97, no order
B is passed on the Transfer petitions at this stage. The Transfer Petitions are
also disposed of accordingly.
T.N.A. Appeal and T.P. disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.