Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, PUNNAIAH
M.Gopaiah - Appellant
Versus
Sri Malleswara Swami Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-26-80
WRIT APPEAL - ORDER DIRECTING ENQUIRY - NOT A JUDGMENT - NO APPEAL LIES - LETTERS PATENT (ANDHRA PRADESH), CLAUSE 15 - RULES OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RULE 17 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 225, 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-society, consisting of landless laborers who were deprived of their livelihood due to the acquisition of their lands by the Central Warehousing Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the Corporation from granting contracts to any other society or individual other than the petitioner-society. During the hearing, the single Judge directed an enquiry to ascertain the persons who were rendered landless or occupationless due to the acquisition of lands by the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order directing an enquiry is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is not appealable. The order does not dispose of the writ petition but is merely a step towards obtaining a final adjudication.
Issues: Whether an order directing an enquiry in a writ petition is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is appealable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court to determine whether an order constitutes a judgment. The tests are: (1) whether it terminates the suit or proceeding, and (2) whether it affects the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself. The court held that the order in question does not satisfy either of these tests and is therefore not a judgment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ appeals as not maintainable.
( 2 ) THOUGH we admitted the writ appeal, we ourselves were doubtful whether a writ appeal lies against such an order. Appeals against judgments rendered in writ petitions by a single Judge of this Court are filed and entertained under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. What constitutes a judgment has been the subject-matter of several decisions. In Asrumati Devi v. Rupendra Deb Raikot, 1953 SCJ 300 : (AIR 1953 SC 198), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question as to what are the tests to determine whether a particular order made by a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, Calcutta constituted a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent for the purpose of the appeal. Their Lordships were concerned with an order allowing an application for transfer of a suit to the High Court to be tried in its Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and had to determine whether it is a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Pat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.