Interlocutory orders do not constitute 'judgments' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and appeals against them are not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, C.J.

Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri Mohd Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos.2 to 4; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Sri Zeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, for respondent No.7.

2. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8887 of 2025 which is interlocutory in nature.

3. If the complete relief which was claimed by the appellant, as an interim measure, has not been granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is at liberty to file appropriate fresh application seeking interim direction from learned Single Judge to decide the remaining portion of the interim relief considering the urgency shown.

4. The fact remains that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and does not fall within the ambit of ‘judgment’. In W.A.No.506 of 2025 and batch, dated 30.04.2025, it was held as under:

“7. Admittedly, the appellants are party respondents before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order without putting the appellants to notice. Thus, the appellants can certainly file applications for vacation of the aforesaid order. If such applications are filed, the learned Single Judge will certainly examine the same and in that event, it cannot be said that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality or falls within the ambit of “judgment”. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. ((2018) 11 SCC 722 ) is of no assistance in the factual backdrop of this matter. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In catena of judgments, it was held that against an interlocutory order, a Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal can be entertained with circumspection and upon fulfilling the requirements of certain factors.

8. In University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain (2013 SCC OnLine AP 342 ), a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it provides an appeal from a “judgment” of Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D.Kania (AIR 1981 SC 1786) was considered and it was held that ‘orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not ‘judgments’ for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letter Patent’. Categories (iv) and (v) read thus:

“(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.

(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.”

Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under:

“ At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of the parties and only passed interlocutory orders and hence in our considered view the same does not satisfy the trappings of the judgments as defined under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the said observation.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. In Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda ((2006) 5 SCC 399 ), on which heavy reliance is placed, the Supreme Court held as under:

“15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which ma