Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 777

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Dr. P.V. Ramana & Another – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6100 of 2018 (Arising From SLP (C) No.14650 of 2018)
Decided On : 06-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Sai Krishna, Senthil Jagadeesan, Suraj Iyer, Julien, Svadha, Sonakshi Malhan, Suriti Chowdhary, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Veena Thadaani, Prasenjit Keswani, Satyajit Saha, Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Bhagwan Thandaani, V.D. Khanna, Advocates.

Courts should consider making interim arrangements during the pendency of a writ petition, and should pass a speaking order regarding interim arrangements.

Headnote:
Interim Relief - High Court Order - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order rejecting interim relief, and remitted the matter back to the High Court with a request to pass a speaking order regarding interim arrangements during the pendency of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants appealed against the High Court's order rejecting interim relief in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court should have made interim arrangements during the pendency of the writ petition, and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the High Court.
Issues: Interim Relief, High Court Order
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court should have made interim arrangements during the pendency of the writ petition, and a speaking order should be passed regarding interim arrangements.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for a speaking order on interim arrangements.

JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before us, aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.4153/2017.

3. Though the writ petition has been admitted, interim relief was rejected. No reasons whatsoever have been stated for rejecting the interim relief.

4. In the factual background of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have made some interim arrangements during the pendency of the writ petition, having regard to the disputes involved in the matter and since the writ petition is not likely to be heard shortly.

5. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 and remit the matter to the High Court with a request to the High Court to pass a speaking order with regard to the interim arrangements during the pendency of the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible.

6. Both the parties shall appear before the High Court on 23.07.2018.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 777

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAKURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.Dr. P.V. Ramana & Another – Appellant(s)VersusState of Maharashtra & Others – Respondent(s)Civil Appeal No. 6100 of 2018 (Arising From SLP (C) No.14650 of 2018) Decided On : 06-07-2018

Courts should consider making interim arrangements during the pendency of a writ petition, and should pass a speaking order regarding interim arrangements.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Dr. P.V. Ramana & Another – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6100 of 2018 (Arising From SLP (C) No.14650 of 2018)
Decided On : 06-07-2018