Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Ranjeet Singh Raisikh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4419 of 2020
Decided On : 05-04-2023
| 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 any reason, much less that the writ petition is tagged with the record of the contempt petition.
4. At this juncture, Mr. Nitin Trivedi, learned counsel, for the petitioner prayed that the interim order passed by this Court on 28.05.2020, which was extended from time to time till 09.09.2020, be extended till the next date.
5. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposed petitioner's such prayer and submitted that neither after 09.09.2020, the interim order was ever extended nor can the same be extended now, because perforce provisions contained under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, the interim order passed by this Court on 28.05.2020 has come to an end.
6. Before passing any order at the request of Mr. Trivedi, it would be apt to take note of the antecedent facts, including the relevant dates.
7. Instant writ petition (No. 4419/2020) was filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents, who were about to discharge the petitioner from service.
8. On 28.05.2020, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following interim order:—
9. Thereafter, the matter was firstly listed on 22.07.2020 and the interim order was extended till 09.09.2020.
10. On 09.09.2020, Mr. Manish Shisiodia, learned counsel, put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and the matter was adjourned for two weeks with simultaneous direction of continuation of the interim order till the next date.
11. It is to be noted that thereafter, for about a year, no reply to the writ petition was filed and the same came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 on 22.11.2021 and on the next day (on 23.11.2021), ah application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution was filed while supplying a copy thereof to Mr. Trivedi on the even date.
12. As luck would have it, neither the application under Article 226(3) nor was the main case listed before the Court thereafter.
13. In the meantime, the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 05.02.2022 (sic 05.02.2021) and discharged the petitioner from services, inter-alia, observing that the respondents have filed an application under Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India on 23.11.2021 and in light of the constitutional provisions contained under Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the interim order has automatically been vacated on expiry of fourteen days therefrom.
14. No sooner had the petitioner received the above referred order dated 05.02.2022, than he moved second stay application on 14.02.2022.
15. The record shows that Mr. Trive
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
