1. Disciplinary action — High Court order — Refusal to extend stay. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1661
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Satish Chandra Verma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 17265-17266 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 26-09-2022 in CM No. 42463 of 2022 and CMA No. 42464 of 2022 Passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) with SLP (C) No. 16419 of 2021 [To Be Taken Up along with SLP(C) No. 17265-17266 of 2022.] (with IA No. 131584 of 2021 – Exemption From Filing C/C of the Impugned Judgment and IA No. 129076 of 2022 – Withdrawal of Case / Application)
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Important Points
The court emphasized the need for earlier disposal of the writ petition and completion of pleadings, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party.
Subject
Civil Law - Interim Orders and Injunctions
Headnote
Interim Order - Stay of Disciplinary Action - The court refused to extend the order of stay of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner but directed the writ petition to be listed for earlier disposal, with completion of pleadings and disposal of the matter within three months. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party.
Fact of the Case:
The court refused to extend the order of stay of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner but directed the writ petition to be listed for earlier disposal, with completion of pleadings and disposal of the matter within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to extend the order of stay of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner but directed the writ petition to be listed for earlier disposal, with completion of pleadings and disposal of the matter within three months. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need for earlier disposal of the writ petition and completion of pleadings, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party.
Final Decision: The special leave petitions were disposed of, and the matter was directed to be listed for earlier disposal with completion of pleadings and disposal of the matter within three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. I. H. Syed, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sarim Naved, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Kamran Javed, Advocate, Mr. Imraz Alam, Advocate, Ms. Ishita Alam, Advocate, Ms. Ranjana Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Prabu, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG., Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Gaur, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Gauraan, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG., Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Khare, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, Advocate, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate, Mr. T. S. Sabarish, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate, Counsel for the appearing parties.
Mr. I. H. Syed, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sarim Naved, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Kamran Javed, Advocate, Mr. Imraz Alam, Advocate, Ms. Ishita Alam, Advocate, Ms. Ranjana Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Prabu, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG., Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Gaur, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Gauraan, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG., Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Khare, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, Advocate, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate, Mr. T. S. Sabarish, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate, Counsel for the appearing parties.
Table of Contents
2. Extension of stay — Disciplinary action. (Para 1 )
3. Interim order — Modification for expedited disposal of writ petition. (Para 2 )
4. Interim orders — Modification to facilitate timely disposal of main petition. (Para 2 )
5. Stay extension refused — Writ petition expedited — Special leave petitions disposed. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
6. Can a court modify an interim order to expedite the disposal of a writ petition?
Yes, the court may modify an interim order to facilitate the earlier disposal of a writ petition, including setting deadlines for pleadings and a timeframe for final disposal. (Para 2 )
7. Does a court's direction for expedited disposal of a case imply an opinion on its merits?
No, a court can direct the expedited disposal of a matter while explicitly stating that such a direction does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party. (Para 3 )
ORDER
SLP (C) Nos. 17265-17266/2022
1. Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to extend the order of stay of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.
2. We note that the impugned order is an interim order but, at the same time, having heard the learned senior counsel, we are of the view that the impugned order must be modified to facilitate earlier disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, we direct that W.P. (C)No. 10539/2021 shall stand listed before the High Court on 22.11.2022. The pleadings are to be completed by the parties well before 22.11.2022. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from 22.11.2022.
3. We make it abundantly clear that we must not be treated as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party.
4. The special leave petitions stand disposed of.
SLP (C) No. 16419/2021
It is submitted by the learned Solicitor General and the learned senior counsel that the matter has become infructuous. The special leave petition is disposed of as infructuous.
