Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Tanveer Alam - Appellant
Versus
GNCTD - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10682 of 2022 & C.M. Nos. 31024-26 of 2022
Decided On : 15-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context of the tribunal's hearings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. urgency of interim relief in appeals. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning on interim relief. (Para 5) |
| 4. dismissal of petition without comment on merits. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns orders dated 11.07.2022 and 13.07.2022.
2. Petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of an original application which was filed on 08.07.2022. The petition was listed before the Tribunal on 11.07.2022 when notice was issued and matter was again listed on 13.07.2022.
3. On 13.07.2022 after hearing the parties the Tribunal was of the view that it was not in a position to grant any interim relief at that stage in view of certain clarification which was sought from the respondent. The petition has been listed before the Tribunal today, i.e. on 15.07.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Tribunal has not passed any interim protective order on 11.07.2022 and 13.07.2022, petitioner has approached this Court as in case petitioner does not get any interim protection today also the petitioner would lose an opportunity of a lifetime.
5. Perusal of orders dated 11.07.2022 and 13.07.2022 show that the said orders do not decline to grant any relief. The fact that Tribunal has listed the matters on 11.07.2022 and 13.07.2022 and now today on 15.07.2022 on the application seeking interim relief shows that the Tribunal is examining the matter in detail. Orders dated 11.07.2022 and 13.07.2022 merely listing the matter today for further hearing are not appealable orders warranting any interference by this Court.
6. In view thereof there is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of either parties.
The court determined that procedural orders of the Tribunal seeking clarifications are not appealable and do not warrant immediate intervention by the High Court.
The court underscored the importance of expedient consideration by the Tribunal in matters affecting an individual's employment status and the requirement for timely responses from the respondents.
The court's decision was influenced by the operational status of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the need to ensure the continuation of interim protection for the petitioner.
The court upheld the interim protection against a demolition order, ensuring the Appellate Tribunal considers appeals without bias from the High Court's order.
A petition can be deemed infructuous if the circumstances underlying the case have materially changed, affecting the necessity of the judicial intervention.
Court ensures procedural fairness by extending interim protection until the Appellate Tribunal MCD commences operations.
Extension of interim orders for protection and the requirement to notify opposing parties about the listing of the matter.
Parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to respond in injunction proceedings; failure to consider the requisite principles warrants intervention by appellate courts.
Interim orders impacting financial recovery must be addressed expeditiously by the Tribunal, with no merit considerations made at this stage.
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
