SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Manipur) 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA, J.
M/s Avisy Services Pvt Ltd - Appellant 
Versus
M/s Nimbus Systems (P) Ltd  - Respondent 
MC (WP(C)) No.810 of 2024 in WP(C) No.846 of 2024
Decided on : 18-02-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Sarvan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.N.Ibotombi, Sr.Adv & Mr. N.Leo, Advocate for R-1/Writ Petnr., Mrs. Ch. Sundari, Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Mr. L. Raju, Mr. Saumitra Singhal, Adv.

Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226(3) - Application for vacation of interim stay orders - The applicant contended that interim orders were passed ex-parte and without hearing the parties, leading to claims of non-maintainability of the writ petition - The court examined the implications of Article 226(3) regarding automatic vacation of interim orders and the necessity of hearing all parties before such orders can be vacated - The court found that the interim orders had been extended in the presence of the applicant, thus converting them into interim orders, which cannot be vacated automatically without a hearing - The court emphasized that the automatic vacation provision applies only to ex-parte orders and not to those extended with the parties present. (Paras 1-16)

(B) Interim Orders - The court clarified that an interim order granted after hearing parties cannot be vacated automatically after a specified period, and must be vacated on merit after hearing all parties involved. (Paras 8, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to vacate interim orders issued in a writ petition, arguing that they were granted without a hearing and based on incomplete facts. The court had previously ordered a stay on the bidding evaluation process.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the interim orders could not be vacated automatically due to the presence of the applicant during extensions, necessitating a hearing for any vacation.

Issues: The main issues included whether the interim orders could be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) and the implications of extending such orders in the presence of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically and must be addressed on merit, emphasizing the importance of hearing all parties involved.

Result: The application for vacation of interim orders was not granted automatically and was set for further proceedings.

ORDER :

A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA, J.

[1] This application MC[WP(C)] No. 810 of 2024 is filed by the applicant/respondent No. 3 for vacation of the interim stay orders dated 11.12.2024 and 13.12.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.846 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. It is stated that the interim orders have been passed ex-parte, without hearing the applicant and private respondent based on incomplete facts and narration and non-maintainability of the writ petition. The application has been filed in terms of liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024. As permitted by this Court, the applicant and writ petitioner also filed short written submissions.

[2] Brief fact leading to filing of the instant misc application is that the petitioner in WP(C) No.846 of 2024, while moving the Court for the first time on 11.12.2024, the matter was ordered to be listed on 13.12.2024 in the motion column as the learned Government Advocate was without file. It was directed to maintain status quo as on date till the next date. On 13.12.2024, this Court was pleased to order that the authorities should not finalise the bidding evaluation process and the work order shall not be issued till the next date. On 18.12.2024, this Court issued notice in the writ petition and learned GA accepted notice on behalf of State respondent and MSPDCL and Mr. Sharvan Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.3 and directed to take step for notice to respondent No.4 by way of speed post. The interim order was extended till next date giving liberty to the private respondents for vacation of the earlier interim order. The matter was directed to be listed on 20.01.2025. The application for vacation of the interim orders has three components- (i) being ex-parte without hearing the private parties, (ii) incomplete and suppression of facts by the writ petitioner, and (iii) non-maintainability of the writ petition.

[3] Mr. Sarvan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.3 has submitted that the MC (WP(C)) No.810 of 2024 was filed and moved on 19.12.2024 and the Hon’ble Court issued Notice fixing on 20.1.2025. It is stated that as the application has not been disposed of within a period of two weeks, the ad-interim order dated 11.12.2024 and 13.12.2024 should be vacated automatically in terms of the stipulation under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India . Further, it is stated that the writ petitioner obtained the ad-interim ex-parte order on 11.12.2024 in absence of applicant/respondent No.3 by suppressing the materials facts and misled the court by stating incomplete facts about the bidding process. It is further stated that the bidding process had already been completed on 14.11.2024 and applicant was declared as L1 and was about to start the work as assigned by the department. Further, it is stated that the writ petitioner only stated about the acknowledgment documents attached without submission of Bid by the petitioner on 30.08.2024 at 01.52 PM within the time as per the corrigendum dated 16.8.2024 but suppressed the material fact that after 30.8.2024 the petitioner modified its bid four times i.e. on 2.9.2024 at 11.32 AM, 2.9.2924 at 11.37 AM for change in tender fees and on 5.9.2024 at 4.55 PM, 05.09.2024 at 5.00 PM and Bid Documents resubmitted and obtained the interim order dated 13.12.2024. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has heavily relied on the provision of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India to impress upon this Court that since the application MC (WP(C)) No.810 of 2024 for vacation of stay filed on 19.12.2024 could not be disposed of within two weeks, the interim orders dated 11.12.2024 and 13.12.2024 would automatically stand vacated. In the written submission dated 04.02.2025 filed by the applicant and during the course of hearing, the only ground pleaded is for automatic vacation of the interim order on expiry of 14 days upon filing of such applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top