SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(AP) 309

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

An order directing an enquiry in a writ petition is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is not appealable.

Headnote:

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.

( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals are directed against the order of our learned brother P. A. Choudary, J. directing the District Munsif, Guntur -"to take evidence by summoning all witnesses and documents which he might consider necessary as to who are all the persons who have been rendered landless or occupationless by reason of the acquisition of the lands at Pedakakani by the Central Warehousing Corporation and of them who are the members of the petitioner-society and who are the members of the 3rd respondent-society and who are interested and who are not interested in working for the Corporation. "sri Malleswara Swamy Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Petiakakani has filed a writ petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition or an appropriate order prohibiting the Central Warehousing Corporation from granting the contract or entrusting the work of handling the material at the godowns and transporting the same from the railhead to any other society or individual other than the petitioner-society. That relief is claimed on the ground that the members of the society who were formerly raising vegetables and other fruit yielding plants on small extents of land now acquired by the Warehousing Corporation have been deprived of their livelihood by dint of the acquisition of their land for the construction if the godowns for the Central Warehousing Corporation. As they had become landless labourers and wanted to work in the godowns forming themselves into a labour co-operative society, the petitioner-society was formed and registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. They are the residents of Pedakakani village. They claim that they have a preferential claim to handle all the material to be stored or lifted from the godowns of the Corporation and are also entitled to transport the same from the Guntur railway station to the godown premises. The petitioner-society was given the work to handle the material on an ad hoc basis and it had also acquired a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970. An undertaking for entrusting the work to them was also given by the respondent-Corporation. It was alleged that notwithstanding that undertaking, the respondent-Corporation has called for tenders for the work to handle the material at the godowns and for transporting the material from the railhead. It is alleged that this action of the respondent is motivated by different considerations and is a step towards favouring some others. During the course of the hearing of that writ petition, our learned Brother thought it necessary to ascertain "the persons whose land have been acquired by the Central Warehousing Corporation". As there was no agreement between the parties regarding that fact, he directed an enquiry as mentioned above. The writ petition is part-heard before the learned single Judge awaiting the report from the District Munsif. Aggrieved by that order, this writ petition is filed.

( 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






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top