The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a special appeal against an interim order, which depends on whether the interim order grants the final relief prayed for.

M. Katju, J.—This special appeal has been filed against the impugned interim order of a learned single Judge dated 1.7.2004. By that order the learned single Judge has stayed the order of the State Government dated 7.6.2004 by which the writ petitioner (who was the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Nagar) was deprived of her financial and administrative powers pending the enquiry into the charges against her under the proviso to Section 29 (1) of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents in this appeal that the impugned interim order dated 1.7.2004, was passed by a learned single Judge during the summer vacations and hence in view of Chapter V Rule 10 (1) of the Allahabad High Court Rules the said interim order amounts to an order of a Division Bench of this Court, and hence no special appeal will lie against it. We do not agree.

4. Chapter V Rule 10 states :

“Criminal work shall continue to be dealt with during the vacation by such Judges as may be appointed for the purpose by the Chief Justice.

They may also exercise original, appellate, revisional, civil or writ jurisdiction vested in the Court in fresh matters which in their opinion require immediate attention.

Such jurisdiction may be exercised even in cases which are under the Rules cognizable by two or more Judges, unless the case is required by any other law to be heard by more than one Judge.”

5. The provision in the said Rule that the jurisdiction of a Division Bench can be exercised by a learned single Judge does not mean that the order of a learned single Judge becomes an order of a Division Bench. It only means that the learned single Judge can exercise the jurisdiction which normally a Division Bench exercises. This does not mean that the single Judge becomes a Division Bench. Hence in our opinion the order remains an order of a learned single Judge, and hence a special appeal will lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.

6. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. v. Smt. Dayavati Khanna, 1994 (2) AWC 1137 : 1995 (Suppl) RD 159.

7. It is then contended by the respondents that no special appeal lies against an interim order.

8. We are of the opinion that by the impugned interim order the learned single Judge has granted the final relief of permitting the writ petitioner to continue to exercise the financial and administrative powers of Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Nagar. Hence in our opinion this special appeal is maintainable.

9. In this connection we may mention that Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules states that an appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment. As to when an interim order will be a judgment and when it will not, has been discussed in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Dr. (Smt.) Ranjana Bajpai, 2004 (1) AWC 88.

10. In Committee of Management v. Manju Keshi Dixit, 1999 (4) AWC 3167, a Division Bench of this Court held that a special appeal against an interim order of a learned single Judge in a writ petition was maintainable where it virtually gave the final relief prayed for. That interim order stated :

“Until further orders we direct that the petitioner shall get salary of L. T. Grade teacher and no recovery shall be made in respect of L.T. grade which he had already received.”

11. The Division Bench was of the view that the special appeal was maintainable against that impugned interim order because the said order amounted to a judgment as it gave the final relief prayed for. The Division Bench followed the decisions in (i) U. P. Jr. Doctor’s Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, JT 1992 (1) SC 571 ; (ii) State of U. P. and others v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) HCVD (All) 153 ; (iii) State of U. P. and another v. Smt. Dayawanti Khanna, 1994 (2) AWC 1137