Back
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
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.
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.
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.
The interest of justice and the right to challenge the order of dismissal were central to the Court's decision.
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order, emphasizing that the appeal process must be respected and that stay applications may be renewed at the appropriate level.
Interlocutory orders are generally not interfered with by higher courts.
The court's decision emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
The court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's request for interim protection, leading to the dissolution of the interim protection granted earlier.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
Interlocutory orders are not subject to appeal if they do not conclusively determine rights or issues relevant to the main case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
