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 the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document