Alpana V. Mehta vs Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary Education

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1984 Supreme(SC) 176

`SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Alpana V. Mehta, Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2491 of 1982
Decided on 17-7-1984.
Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate and Mrs. J. Wad, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. R. P. Bhatt and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee Sr. Advocates, M/s. Ravi Kulkarni, Ravinder Narain, A. N. Hasker, D. N. Misra and Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocates with them for Respondents.
* W. P. No. 2000 of 1982, D/- 22-7-1982 (Bom).

Advocates:
A.K.VERMA, A.N.HAKSAR, D.N.Mishra, J.VAD, R.P.BHATT, RAVI KULKARNI, Ravindra Narayan, SOLI J.SORABJI, V.S.DESAI

Headnote:
Special Leave Petitions - Interim orders - Appellant in this case had filed a similar writ petition before High Court but by that time earlier writ petitions had been already allowed by two judgments referred to above - Her Writ Petition was however dismissed by High Court in limine of sole ground that operation of those judgments had been stayed by this court by interim orders passed by this Court in Special Leave Petitions filed against those two judgments – Held, appellant is on firm ground in her contention that High Court was not justified in dismissing her Writ Petition on said ground no useful purpose will now be served by sending back case to High Court in view of judgment that Court have just now delivered wherein all contentions raised by petitioner which are identical with those considered in said judgment have been found to be devoid of merit - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.:—This appeal was heard along with other Civil Appeals, Nos. 1653 to 1691 of 1980 Reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 wherein we have delivered our judgment today, allowing the appeals and setting aside the two judgments of the High Court of Bombay. The appellant in this case had filed a similar writ petition before the High Court but by that time the earlier writ petitions had been already allowed by the two judgments referred to above. Her Writ Petition was however dismissed by the High Court in limine of the sole ground that the operation of those judgments had been stayed by this court by interim orders passed by this Court in Special Leave Petitions filed against those two judgments. Though the appellant is on firm ground in her contention that the High Court was not justified in dismissing her Writ Petition on the said ground no useful purpose will now be served by sending back the case to the High Court in view of the judgment that we have just now delivered wherein all the contentions raised by the petitioner which are identical with those considered in the said judgment have been found to be devoid of merit. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties will bear the respective costs.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1827

Click Here to Read the rest of this document