D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference by the learned Single Judge to the Full Bench of this Court, the question involved is of correct interpretation of clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is substituted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978.

( 2 ) IN the course of deciding Civil Application No. 1724 of 1995 in the present Special Civil Application No. 642 of 1994, the learned Single Judge M. R. Calla, J noticed that interpretation placed on clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the learned Single Judge H. L. Gokhale, J (as he then was) in the decision reported in (Mrs.) S. N. Pandor and Others vs. District Judge, District Court, Sabarkantha 1995 (2) GLH 976 requires consideration by a larger Bench of this Court.

( 3 ) CLAUSE (3) of Article 226 introduced by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, as the text of the said clause shows, obviously was with an intention that ex-parte interim orders by way of injunction or stay in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution passed against the party by the High Court should not operate to the prejudice of that party for an indefinite period of time. Clause (3) of Article 226 therefore requires that an interim order by way of injunction or stay obtained without furnishing to the party against whom the order is made, copy of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order and giving such party an opportunity of being heard, shall automatically stand vacated if the aggrieved party makes an application to the High Court for vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party and on completion of such formalities the High Court fails to dispose of the application for vacating the interim order within a period of two weeks from the date on which the application for vacating interim order is received, or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished to the opposite party, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period before the expiry of the next date afterwards the High Court is opened.

( 4 ) THE contents and language employed in clause (3) of Article 226 clearly convey the intention of the Parliament that the life of an interim exparte order/stay/injunction passed by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be for a maximum period of two weeks if the applicant is served with the application for vacation/modification of exparte order, unless in the mean time on the application of the party aggrieved by such ex-parte order the High Court decides to continue the order of stay or varies or confirms the same.

( 5 ) IN order to understand the interpretation placed by learned Single Judge, H. L. Gokhale, J on clause (3) of Article 226, it would be necessary to reproduce clause (3) verbatim:" (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without - (A) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (B) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document