JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel appearing for the principal respondent / petitioner and Shri N. Kumarjit, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Jackson, the learned counsels appearing for the applicant/private respondent.

2. This is an application filed by the applicant / the private respondent herein praying for vacating / modifying or cancelling the interim order dated 16-09-2016 which was allowed to continue vide order dated 23-09-2016 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 696 of 2016.

3. On 26-10-2016, when this application came up for consideration, Shri N. Kumarjit, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that since the application had not been disposed of within two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which a copy thereof is so furnished, the interim order dated 16-09-2016 stood vacated by operation of the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. However, this contention is vehemently opposed to by Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel appearing for the principal respondent / petitioner on two points - (a) that the order dated 16-09-2016 passed by this court and in particular, the sentence “List the matter on 23-09-2016 for consideration of interim prayer and in the meantime, the impugned order dated 22-08-2016 shall remain suspended” is not an interim order and (b) that since the application is not filed by referring to the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, it cannot be held that the order dated 16-09-2016 passed by this court stood vacated.

4. Since the issue as regards the applicability of the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India to the facts of the present case and in particular, the application has arisen, the same are reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under Clause (1), without

(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) Giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.]”

The provisions of Article 226(3) which came to be substituted by way of amendment are plain, simple and unambiguous and in fact, this court is of the view that the same require no interpretation at all and to apply them, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled:

(a) An interim order shall be made in a proceeding relating to a petition under Clause (1) against any party;

(b) The interim order shall be made without furnishing a copy of the petition and documents in support thereof to such party;

(c) The interim order shall be made without giving such a party an opportunity of being heard;

(d) Such party against whom interim order is made, shall make an application for vacating such interim order with copy being furnished to the party in whose favour interim order has been passed;

(e) The High Court shall dispose of the application within two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which copy of such application is furnished; and

(f) In the event of the said application being not disposed of by the High Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document