An appeal against an interim order is permissible if it substantially affects the rights or liabilities of the parties, as per Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. Respondents 6 to 9 in W.P. (C) No.38692 of 2023 are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated 27.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein-writ petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P12 order dated 15.11.2023 of the 1^st respondent State to the extent it directs the 6^th respondent District Educational Officer, Kannur, to take over the management of Parassinikadavu Higher Secondary School and High School. The interim relief sought for in that writ petition is an order seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the direction issued in Ext.P12 order, to the extent it directs the 6^th respondent District Educational Officer to take over the management of Parassinikadavu Higher Secondary School and High School.

2. When W.P. (C) No.38692 of 2023 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge granted an interim stay of Ext.P12 order, as sought for in that writ petition, which is still in force. The appellants-respondents 6 to 9 filed W.P. (C) No.12881 of 2024 challenging Ext.P12 order, which is pending consideration. During the pendency of the above writ petitions, respondents 1 and 2 herein-writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38692 of 2023 have filed another writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No.8541 of 2025, which is also pending consideration.

3. In this writ appeal, the appellants are challenging the interim order dated 27.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.38692 of 2023. The said interim order reads thus:

“There will be an interim order clarifying that the pendency of this writ petition may not be a bar for consideration of approval of new Manager proposed by the 1^st petitioner-Society. However, any such appointment will be subject to further orders in this writ petition.”

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents 6 to 9, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-writ petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 7.

5. On the question of maintainability of a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition, the Larger Bench in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala, 1992 (2) KLT 358 held that the word ‘order’ in Section 5(i) of the Act includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions provided the orders are to be in force pending the writ petition. An appeal would lie against such orders only if the orders substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. The nature of the ‘order’ appealable belongs to the category of ‘intermediate orders’ referred to by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551. The word ‘order’ is not confined to ‘final order’ which disposes of the writ petition. The ‘orders’ should not however, be ad-interim orders in force pending the miscellaneous petition or orders merely of a procedural nature.

6. In Thomas P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and others, 2021 (6) KLT 196, a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the view that was upheld by the Larger Bench in K.S. Das [1992 (2) KLT 358] was that even though an appeal could be filed against an interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, in order to be qualified for challenge in an appeal, the order shall be either substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. According to the Larger Bench, the nature of the order appealable belongs to the category of intermediate orders referred to by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551