The main legal point established in the judgment is that an interim order can only be vacated on the instance of the affected party, and not suo moto by the court.

RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

This writ pe tition has been filed against the order dated 27. 6. 2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar. Through this order the interim order dated 9. 4. 2008 staying the operation of the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been vacated.

2. The facts given rise to this case are that, that against the order passed in appeal on 27. 6. 2007 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Revision No. 522 was filed by Nairn Pal Singh. In which on 9. 4. 2008 an order was passed staying the implementa tion of the order passed by Settlement Offi cer, Consolidation.

3. It appears on the information re ceived by the subordinate staff, the Deputy Director of Consolidation suo moto vacated the order dated 9. 4. 2008.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Yasharth has submitted before the Court that no application for vacating the interim order was filed by the respondents.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of the order, which this Court is intending to pass, this Court is not issuing the notices to the respondents Nos. 2 to 15. However, the learned Standing Counsel has no objection in final disposal of this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

7. It is well settled that once an in terim order has been passed, staying the operation of the order passed by Court below, then order can only be vacated, on the instance of the affected party, the Court suo moto cannot vacate the interim order. In this case interim order has been vacated suo-moto holding that it is in interest of the State. Whereas the dispute was in between the private parties and there was no direct interest of the State.

8. In view of that, the writ petition succeed and is allowed the order dated 27. 6. 2008 is hereby quashed. Liberty is given to the respondents to move proper application for vacation of the interim or der dated

9. 4. 2008 passed by Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation. In case, such applica tion is filed that may be considered in ac cordance with law. Till the disposal of the said application, if any, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9. 4. 2008 shall remain operative.

9. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is at liberty to decide the revision itself expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to the Coun sel of either parties. In case, the parties avoid to participate in the hearing, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is at lib erty to proceed ex-parte.

Petition Allowed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document