Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KALYAN RAI SURANA, DEVASHIS BARUAH
RUKUVOTU RINGA – Appellant
Versus
MEYALEMLA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Devashis Baruah, J.) :
Heard Mr. K. N. Balagopal, the learned Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. M. Kechi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland. We have also heard Mr. R. Iralu, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court vide an order dated 01.02.2024.
REFERENCE :
2. The Division Bench of this Court vide a judgment and order dated 26.06.2020 in Writ Appeal No. 3(K)/2020 deemed it appropriate that the issue as to whether Sub-Article (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution is directory or mandatory be referred to a larger Bench taking into account that the said learned Division Bench had opined that Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is directory in nature whereas the Co-ordinate Benches of similar strength of our High Court in the cases of South East Bus Association and Others Vs. The State of Assam reported in (1981) 1 GLR 305; R. D. Srivastava Vs. Suren Panging reported in 2003 (1) GLT 346 and Thokchom Anita Devi & Others Vs. Tayenj
Article 226(3) of the Constitution is mandatory, emphasizing the essential nature of judicial review and the requirement for hearings before vacating interim orders.
(1) An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to long passage of time – If a High Court concludes after hearing all concerned p....
Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is mandatory, leading to the automatic vacation of interim orders if not disposed of within two weeks.
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before passing orders affecting parties' rights, reinforcing the supervisory nature of Article 227 over judicial decisions.
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
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
