Back
2007 Supreme(Chh) 66
2007(1) CG.L.J. 347
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri S.K. Agnihotri, J.
ROMANLAL BELCHANDAN Applicant
Vs.
ALOK SHUKLA & OTHERS Non-applicants
Contempt Case No. 14 of 2007,
Decided on 25-1-2007.
Mr. T.K. Tiwari, for the Applicant.
The status quo order in a transfer case survives only during the pendency of the writ petition and cannot be considered after disposal of the petition.
Headnote:
Contempt - Status Quo Order - The court held that the status quo order granted earlier in a transfer case survives only during the pendency of the writ petition and cannot be considered after disposal of the petition. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger dictates that the interim order cannot operate after disposal of the petition, and the petitioner cannot challenge the alleged violation of the interim order after disposal of the main petition.
Fact of the Case:
The court granted an interim relief to maintain status quo in a transfer case, which was subsequently dismissed as in fructuous due to a transfer order. The petitioner alleged a violation of the interim order after the disposal of the main petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the contempt petition, stating that no case for contempt was made out, and there was no order as to costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the status quo order granted earlier in the transfer case could be considered after the disposal of the main petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the status quo order survives only during the pendency of the writ petition and cannot be considered after disposal of the petition. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger dictates that the interim order cannot operate after disposal of the petition, and the petitioner cannot challenge the alleged violation of the interim order after disposal of the main petition.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
1. On 19-9-2005, this Court in Writ Petition No. 4467/2005 passed an order of granting interim relief to maintain status quo as obtains on that day in respect of the petitioner. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, despite order dated 19-9-2005 some other order was passed on 31-8-2005, which according to the petitioner was contrary to the order dated 30-6-2006 (Annexure C-2). passed by this Court
2. The Writ Petition No. 4467/2005 was finally dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2006 as having become in fructuous in view of the subsequent transfer order. The interim order dated 19-9-2005 has merged with the final order dated 30-10-2006 passed in the main petition. Grant of an interim order to maintain status quo as obtains on that day survives during pendency of the writ petition only, not thereafter. If, contention of the petitioner that Status quo order granted earlier be considered after disposal of the writ petition is accepted that may lead to devastating consequences leaving no way of undoing the mischief. Status quo order is not forever in a transfer case. If status quo order is maintained, even after disposal of the writ petition, the same would create hindrance in the administrative functioning of the employer to place a person at a Particular place in the public interest and in administrative exigency. It is well settled that the logic underlying the doctrine of merger can not be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. The interim order which merges with the final order cannot be allowed to Operate after disposal of the petition. The petitioner can not challenge the alleged violation of the interim order after disposal of the main petition.
3. In view of the above, no case for contempt is made out. thus, the contempt petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Contempt Petitions Dismissed.
