Back
MANMOHAN, DIPANKAR DATTA
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Pratyush Rawat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review of interim orders (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. critique of high court's injunctive reasoning (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. outcome of appeal and implications (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
2. This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 11th November, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 21609 of 2021. The last paragraph of the said order reads as follows:
3. The special leave petition, out of which this appeal arises, was taken up for consideration by a Bench of this Court on 19th December, 2024. While issuing notice, returnable in February, 2025, this Court recorded having perused the orders passed by the High Court on the said Public Interest Litigation right from 23rd September, 2021 till the date the impugned order (dated 11th November, 2024) was made.
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
The court ruled that ex-parte interim orders in public procurement should be avoided to prevent disruption of essential services, emphasizing timely decision-making in such matters.
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 in Public Interest Litigations do not constitute appealable judgments unless they significantly affect the rights of a party. Procedural orders are not appealable under Chapter V....
Judicial orders, particularly those granting injunctions, must be reasoned and demonstrate the application of legal standards to the facts; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.
Interlocutory orders are generally not interfered with by higher courts.
Failure to consider granting or refusing interim relief after admitting a matter based on its merit constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
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
