Holding

A High Court cannot pass an interim order that virtually allows a review petition without first deciding its maintainability.

Summary

The respondent, a Commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force, faced departmental proceedings initiated in 2000 and was not eligible for promotion during the inquiry, with a superannuation age of 57 slated for September 2008. While a writ appeal filed by the appellants was pending, the Madras High Court conditionally promoted him to Additional DIG and DIG, subject to the outcome of the writ appeal, and later allowed the writ appeal. After the Supreme Court dismissed the respondent's special leave petitions, he filed a review application seeking regularisation of the promotions, and the High Court issued interim orders permitting him to continue as DIG beyond the retirement date, effectively allowing the review without first deciding its maintainability. The appellants contended that such interim orders were impermissible, arguing that the High Court must first determine whether the review petition is maintainable. The Supreme Court held that a court cannot grant relief that amounts to allowing a review petition without first deciding its maintainability, directing the High Court to decide that question before proceeding. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with directions to the High Court and left the interim stay order operative pending a decision on the review application.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can pass an interim order that effectively allows a review petition without first deciding the maintainability of the review petition.

Subjects

review petitionmaintainabilityinterim orderconditional promotiondepartmental inquirysuperannuationstatus quoSupreme CourtHigh Courtprocedural law

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 623

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL A
RESERVE POLICE FORCE NEW DELHI & ORS.
II.
P.M. RAMALINGAM
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6755·6756 of 2008)
B
NOVEMBER 25, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Interim order, passed in review petition - Relief granted C
virtually amounted to allowing review petition . .,. Held: Such
course is not permissible in law.

. The departmental proceedings were ihitiated against
the respondent during 2000. At that time, he was serving 0
in the rank of Commandant. He was not entitled to any
promotion during the pendency of the departmental
inquiry against him. The age of superannuation in the
rank of Commandant being 57 years, respondent was
required to superannuate during September 2008.
E
During the pendency of the Writ Appeal filed by the
appellants, by virtue of interim orders of the High Court,
respondent was promoted conditionally to the rank of
Addi. DIG and DIG respectively. The High Court
mentioned that such promotions were subject to the F.
outcome of Writ Appeal. High Court allowed the writ
appeal filed by appellants. Respondent filed SLPs which
was dismissed. Respondent then filed review application.
In the review application, plea essentially was to get his
two promotions regularized which otherwise had been c$
accepted by the respondent for many years to be
conditional. High Court passed interim order of status quo,
permitting respondent fo continue to discharge his duties
· as DIG beyond 30.9.2008.
623 H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
'r
A In ·appeals to this Court, appellants contended that
the interim orders passed in review applic·ation were
passed without deciding on the question of
maintainabiiity of the review application.
Dispo$irig of the appeals with certain directions, the
8 Court ' ·
HELO: The High:-~ourt could not have passed the ~·
interim order which virtually means allowing the review
petition, without deciding the question of maintainability
c of the review petition. Such a course is not permissible
in law. [Para 8] (627-0] ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
6755-6756 of 2008.
-From the interim Order dated 18.3.2008 and 29.4.2008
0
of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Review Application
No. 42 of 2008 and M.P. No. 2 of2008 in Review Application
No. 42 of 2008 in Writ Appeal No. 1074 of 2004.
P.S. Patwalia, V. Mahana, S.N. Terdol and Sushma Suri
E for the Appellants. -

R. Ramesh A Sumathi for the Respondent.
The Judgment9f the Court was delivered by
OR. ARIJIT'PASAYAT,.J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in re~iew
applicationno.42/2008, M.P. No .. 1/08 dated 18th March, 2008
and M.P. No. 2/08 in review application no.42/08. Accordingly,
G the respondent's review applicati9n was nothing but an abuse
of the process of court as ~he :same relief which was turned
down by this Court has been sought for in the review
application. It is the case of the appellants that the High Court
has passed the interim order ot'status quo:which would entitle
H the respondent to enjoy the benefits of conditional promotion
DIRECTOR GEN. OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE625
FORCl::NEWDELHlv.P.M.RAMALINGAM[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,J.]

as well as benefit of three years of extra service to which. he A
was not entitled to.

3. It is pointed out that the High Court allowed the writ
appeal filed by the appellants granting liberty to proceed with
departmental inquiry in accordance with law. The respondent
8
fllecrSCP(C) 4552-4533/2008 specifically praying to restrain
~· the department from reverting the respondent from the post of
DIG to the post of Additional DIG and consequently to the post
of Commandant. The aforesaid SLPs were mentioned on
21.2.2008 and it was directed that the matter shall be listed
on 3rd March, 2008 and reversion, if any, was stayed till then.
c
The matter was listed and after hearing the parties this Court
dismissed the SLPs. Soon after dismissal of the SLPs on the
merit, the respondent again filed revision for review of the
judgment in Writ Appeal nos.1074 and 1075 of 2004 dated
4.1.2008. The plea essentially was to get his two promotions 0
regularized which otherwise had been accepted· by the
respondent for many years to be conditional. It is pointed out
that when the departmental proceedings were initiated during
2000 against the respondent he was serving in the rank of
Commandant and was not entitled to any promotion during the E
pendency of the departmental inquiry against him and the age
of superannuation in the rank of Commandant is 57 years.
Therefore, he was required to superannuate during September
2008. He was promoted conditionally to the rank of Addi. DIG
and DIG respectively by virtue of interim orders of the High Court F
dated 29.3.2004 and 6.7.2007 during the pendency of the Writ
Appeal filed by the appellants. It was clearly mentioned by the
High Court that such promotions were subject to the outcome
of Writ Appeal nos.1074 and 1075 of 2004. It is pointed out
that even without deciding on the question of maintainability of G
the of the review application, the interim orders were passed
; virtually allowing the review application.

4. It is to be noted that during the hearing of the appeal,
learned counsel for the appellants pointed out an order dated
H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A 29.9.2008 in M.P. No. 1/2008 in Writ Petition no.23914/08
granting interim stay of the proceedings pursuant to the orders
made.in No. PNll-2/2008 Pers-I dated 24.9.2008. The prayer
was to permit .the writ petitioner to continue to discharge his
duties as DIG.beyond.30.9.2008. It is submitted that ultimate
B relief prayed for has ~een granted by granting interim stay.
,
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, • r
submitted thatthe High Court was perfectly justified in passing
the interim orders.

C 6. We find that the High Court by its first order observed
as follow:

"5. Mr. Anand Natarajan, learned counsel for the review
petitioner, without seeking stay of th~ disciplinary action,
D prays for interim injunction restraining the respondents from
reverting the .petitioner from the post of DIG to ADIG,
pending the disposal of the review petition, on the ground
that the age of retirement of DIG is 60 years and on the
other hand if he is reverted he would be retiring at the age
of 58 years even pending the above disciplinary action.
E
6. It is under such circumstances, we are satisfied that the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and,
therefore, we pass the following order:-

F a) the review petition is admitted without prejudice·to !
the right of the respondents to oppose ' I

maintainability at the time offinal hearing;

b) the disciplinary proceedings initiated will not be
stayed, on the other hand, the review petitioner shall
G cooperate with·the disciplinary proceedings, which
f
shall be completed within twelve weeks from the )

date of commencement of the disciplinary
proceedings viz. 4.3.2008 as agreed by the learned
Senior Central Government standing Counsel; and
H
DIRECTOR GEN. OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POUCE627;
FORCENEWDELHI v. P.M. RAMALINGAM[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,J.]
,, c) . the respondents shall maintain status quo, pending A
further orders." ·

7. In the second order the High Court directed as follow:

"Heard both sides ..
91
As the departmental enquiry has already
commenced, it may not be proper to stay all further
proceedings of the enquiry at this stage. Hence, it is suffice,
in our considered opinion, to permit the enquiry
proceedings to go on, however, with a direction to keep c·
· the final decision in abeyance tlll the disposal of the above
review application, as otherwise the review application
would become infructuous."
...
8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants, the High Court could not have passed the interim D
order which virtually means allowing the review petition, without
deciding the question of maintainability of the review petition.
... Such a course is not permissible in law.

9. We, therefore, dispose of these appeals with the E
following directions:

·I (1) The High Court shall decide the question relating
to maintainability of the review petition and then
proceed to deal with it, if it is found that the review
F
petition is maintainable .
...
(2) Further the order of this Court dated 18.9.2008
granting interim stay of the High Court's orders
dated 18.3.2008 and 29.4.2008 shall remain
operative till the Review Application no.42/08 in G
Writ Appeal no.1074104 is decided. It is made
' clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
question of as to the maintainability or otherwise of
the Review application.
H
~
'
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 16 S.C.R.

A . · .· (3) If is open to 'the appellants to move the High Court _,
to seek variation of the impugned order in Writ
·. _~~titian. 2~~.14 of2Q08 ref~_rr~d to above.
(4) Let authorities make an effort to .complete. the
a,...:.
~ " departmental proceedings within three months.
Needless to·say the respondent shall cooperate in
such completion.
. I
1Q, Both :the appeals are accordingly disposed of without
any order as .to costs.
c
D:G. Appeals disposed of.
"

) '
:. '' ,,,.

I

l.
t

__}:

r