Back
2001 Supreme(Ori) 42
High Court Of Orissa
Pradipta Ray, A. S. Naidu
REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ORISSA - Appellant
Versus
BHUBAN BEHARI SAHOO - Respondent
A. H. O. 16 Of 2001
Decided On : 02/06/2001
BIMBISAR DASH, K.SWAMY, S.K.Nayak
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the balance of convenience and inconvenience is a crucial factor in determining the maintenance of an interim order.
Headnote:
Interim Order - Co-operative Bank Management - Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, Section 32(7), Section 62(6) - The court discussed the maintainability of the appeal under Letters Patent against an interim order and cited relevant case law. It also emphasized the purpose of an interim order and the principles relating to grant of interim mandatory order. The court found that the balance of convenience and inconvenience did not favor maintaining the interim order, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the interim order and directing the temporary committee of management to only run the day-to-day administration of the Bank till disposal of the writ application.
Fact of the Case:
The Registrar suspended the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Bank under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. The suspended members challenged the order, and an interim order was passed in favor of the Committee of Management. The Registrar appealed against the interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal under Letters Patent against the interim order was maintainable. It emphasized the purpose of an interim order and the principles relating to grant of interim mandatory order. The court concluded that the balance of convenience and inconvenience did not favor maintaining the interim order and allowed the appeal.
Issues: The maintainability of the appeal under Letters Patent against an interim order, the purpose of an interim order, and the principles relating to grant of interim mandatory order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an interim order is meant to preserve the status quo and prevent future injury. It also highlighted that a prima facie case alone is not sufficient for the grant of an interim order.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the interim order and directing the temporary committee of management to only run the day-to-day administration of the Bank till disposal of the writ application.
PRADIPTA RAY, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under the letters Patent is against an order dated January 22, 2001 passed by the Hon'ble Single judge refusing to vacate or modify the interim order dated December 20, 2001 passed by him in O. J. C. No. 13334/2000.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts briefly stated are as follows :"by order dated December 13, 2000 the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'registrar) suspended the Committee of Management of mayurbhanj Central Co-operative Bank, baripada under the Presidentship of Sri bhuban Behari Sahu in e-ercise of power under Section 32 (7) of the Orissa Co-operative societies Act (hereinafter regarded to as the 'act' ). Shri Bhuban Behari Sahu, the President of the committee was already under suspension by an order passed by the Auditor general in e-ercise of his powers under section 62 (6) of the Act. On December 14, 2000 the order of suspension was served on some of the members of the suspended Committee of Management and the Collector, Mayaur-bhanj as Chief Management incharge appointed by the Registrar assumed charge of management of the Co-operative Bank. Immediately upon assumption of charge the Collector, informed the different authorities about the said fact of assumption of charge by memo dated December 14, 2000. On December 19, 2000 Sri Bhuban Behari Sahu, the President of the suspended Committee of Management and Smt. Draupadi Sahu, the Vice-President filed two separate writ applications challenging the said order of suspension by the Registrar. On December 20, 2000 the said writ applications were moved and the Hon'ble Single judge directed to issue notice and e- parte granted the following interim order: heard the petitioner in person. As an interim measure it is directed that operation of the impugned order dated 13. 12. 2000 as per Anne-ure-1 shall remain stayed untill further orders and the Committee of Management shall remain incharge. "the Registrar of Co-operative Societies filed an application being Misc. Case No. 199/2000 before the Hon'ble Single Judge for vacating and/or modification of the interim order dated december 20, 2000. On January 5, 2001 Sri janaki Prasad Choudhury, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies appeared in person before the Hon'ble Single Judge and filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Registrar. As the writ petitioner complained that the interim order was not being complied with, the Hon'ble single Judge directed the Registrar to e-plain why the interim order dated December 20, 2000 had not been complied with. Against the said order dated January 5, 2001 the Registrar filed an appeal under Letters Patent being a. H. O. No. 9/2001. This Court did not want to interfere at the said stage as the Registrar's application for vacating the interim order was still pending and by order dated January 10, 2001 disposed of the A. H. O with the e-pectation that the application for vacating the interim order would be taken up on the ne-t date fi-ed. By order dated January 22, 2001 the Hon'ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petitioner's application for interim order being Misc. Case No. 13524/2000 and the Registrar's application for vacating and modification of the interim order being Misc. Case No. 199/2000 making the interim order dated 22, 2001 absolute and rejecting the Registrar's application for vacating the interim order. Being aggrieved, the Registrar has filed this appeal under Letters Patent against the aforesaid order dated January 22, 2001.
( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner ).
( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 writ petitioner has questioned the maintainability of appeal under Letters Patent against an interim order. He has submitted that the present interim order cannot be said to be 'judgment' within the meaning of Letters Patent and this appeal is not maintainable.
( 5 ) WHAT constitutes a 'judgment' under clause 15 of t
