Back
DINESH MEHTA
Ranjeet Singh Raisikh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. clerical errors cannot undermine court orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners seek extension of interim orders. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. failure to list applications affects interim orders. (Para 6 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 39) |
| 4. sequence of events affecting writ petition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 48) |
| 5. differing interpretations of article 226(3). (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. current legal challenges on interim order validity. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. court's interpretation on 'high court' in article 226. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 8. court directs further action based on administrative issues. (Para 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
The matter comes up for consideration of the second stay application.
2. In spite of the direction given by this Court to list this case along with SBCWP No. 2811/2022, the said case has not been listed by the Registry. Surprisingly rather brazenly enough, concerned clerk has not listed the matter with following noting:—
3. This Court takes a serious exception to the approach of the concerned clerk - once the Court directs to list the matter, he cannot refuse to list a matter for an
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
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.
The mandatory nature of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
Ex parte ad-interim relief under Article 226(3) vacates automatically after two weeks if not adjudicated, irrespective of parties' actions, ensuring prompt resolutions.
(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....
A party must act promptly under Article 226(3) to vacate an interim order; inaction may imply acceptance.
Judicial discretion in extending interim orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the expectation of appropriate consideration by the original judge.
The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.
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
