Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 391 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19819 of 2023 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 391 of 2025 ==========================================================
RAJKOT RAJPATH LIMITED & ANR.
Versus CHITRA (B) PUBLICITY COMPANY ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRAKASH JANI, SR. ADV. WITH MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR. R.S.SANJANWALA, SR. ADV. WITH MR HEET B JHAVERI(11950) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 12/03/2025
The court clarified that interim orders should not grant final relief and emphasized the need for timely resolution of pending writ petitions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Interim orders - The court addressed the challenge to an interim order staying the black-listing of the petitioner, asserting that the learned single Judge effectively granted final relief at the interim stage. Cited judgments include State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Sukhi Devi [(2005) 9 SCC 733] and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki [(2019) 17 SCC 555]. (Paras 1, 5)
(B) Writ Petition - The court noted that the writ petition has been pending for over a year and should be decided on merits, with both parties agreeing to cooperate for an early resolution. (Paras 2, 3)
(C) Suspension of Interim Order - The court suspended the operation of the interim order while clarifying that any effects of the order prior to suspension would remain intact. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenged an interim order that stayed the black-listing of the petitioner, with the court recognizing the need for a final decision on the merits of the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was disposed of with a request for the learned single Judge to expedite the final decision on the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the interim order effectively granted final relief and the need for a timely resolution of the pending writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the interim order should not grant final relief and that the merits of the case should be adjudicated in the final hearing.
Result: The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.
ORDER :
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)
The only ground to challenge the interim order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned single Judge is that in staying the effect and operation of the order of black-listing, which was the final order, subject matter of challenge before the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge has virtually granted a final relief to the petitioner at the interim stage. The judgment of Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Sukhi Devi [(2005) 9 SCC 733) and Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki [(2019) 17 SCC 555] have been placed before us to substantiate the said submission.
2. Having noticed the above, we may record that it is submitted by the learned senior counsels appearing for the parties that the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition, which is pending for more than a year, can be decided finally on merits.
3. Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Heet Jhaveri, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent, would submit that the respondent/original petitioner would make an effort for early disposal of the writ petition. Mr. Prakash Jani, the learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Hriday Buch, the learned counsel for the appellants also state that the original respondents/appellants herein shall co-operate in the early disposal of the writ petition.
4. We may further record that challenge to the order of the black-listing dated 03.10.2023 passed against the original petitioners is on the grounds as noted by the learned single Judge in the order impugned which are on the merits of the order. The said grounds can be adjudicated during the final disposal of the writ petition itself.
5. It is further informed by the learned counsels for the parties that the next dated fixed in the matter is 01.04.2025. We, therefore, find it fit and proper to dispose of the present appeal while suspending the operation of the interlocutory order dated 30.10.2024, which amounts to granting of final relief in the writ petition, with the request to the learned single Judge to make an endevour to decide the writ petition finally after giving due opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates appearing for both the parties.
6. It is further clarified that while suspending the operation of the order dated 30.10.2024, which has remained operative till date, the effect given to the said order, in the interregnum, will not be affected by the present order of suspension of the interim order dated 30.10.2024. In other words, any effect given to the interim order dated 30.10.2024, in the interregnum i.e. from the date of its passing till today, will not be affected by this order of suspension of the interim stay. We further request the learned single Judge to make an endevour to decide the writ petition as early as possible.
7. With the above, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. The Civil Application for stay also stands disposed of, accordingly.
