The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLV, Rule 13 and Section 151 - Jurisdiction of High Court to grant interim relief post certificate issuance for Supreme Court appeal examined - Interim relief not maintainable as Court has no jurisdiction to grant such relief after a certificate is granted - Clause (d) of sub-rule (2) of Order XLV does not empower changes to already issued final orders or other decrees unless expressly permitted - Petitioner’s request for stay or directions prior to Supreme Court appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 12, 50)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s permit for stage carriage operation was revoked due to route nationalization via notifications. A writ was dismissed. Following a certificate for appeal was granted, an application for interim relief was denied due to a lack of jurisdiction to issue such orders.

Findings of Court:
Jurisdiction to provide interim relief over the matter is not recognized in instances of already dismissed applications or when appealing to the Supreme Court thereafter.

Issues: Whether jurisdiction exists to grant interim relief after a certificate of appeal is issued under procedural provisions conflicted; focus on Order XLV, Rule 13 and Section 151 applicability in such scenarios was central to this adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that interim directions cannot alter existing decrees and that necessary statutory provisions were already established under Order XLV, restricting the issuance of interim relief based on past rulings.

Result: Interim relief rejected; costs awarded to the respondents.

Table of Content
1. interim relief applications are not executable orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. question of jurisdiction for interim relief under specific provisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. scope of judicial power under rules governing appeals. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. previous decisions inform the interpretation of interim relief provisions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. conditions and provisions under which relief can be granted. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. need for interim protection of subject matter of appeal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. judicial discretion in granting interim measures related to appeals. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. understanding the powers available under specific court rules. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
9. clarification on the nature of 'subject matter' regarding appeals. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
10. conclusion on the inapplicability of interim relief in this case. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

1. I had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother Jagdish Sahai and I agree with him that the question should be answered In the negative and that the petitioner should pay costs of the respondents. Or. 45, R. 13(2)(d) does not apply; I have given my reasons for this view in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mukhtar Singh , (S) AIR 1957 All. 505 and have very little to add. The words "give such other direction" must he interpreted as analogous to placing any party seeking the assistance of the C ourt under conditions and cl. (d) comes into operation when a party seeks the assistance of the court and they either conditions may be imposed upon him or such other direction as appointment of a receiver may be given.
The words "party seeking the assistance of the court" do not refer to the party to whom a certificate has been granted; granting the certificate is not granting him the assistance of the court. The clause comes into operation after a certificate has been granted and applies when after the grant of a certificate a party seeks the assistance of a court in one way or another. Here the petitioner sought the assistance of the court by seeking a certain interim relief and if the relief is granted to him, it may be granted on conditions or subject to a direction respecting the subject matter of the appeal. Whether the interim relief should be granted to him or not is an entirely different matter not dealt with by the clause. The only clause that might apply is cl. (c), but the interim relief that is sought is not covered by it.

2. The order under appeal to the Supreme C ourt is an order refusing to issue certiorari to quash certain notifications published under S.68 - of the Motor Vehicles Act and mandamus commanding the State and others not to interfere with the petitioner's right to ply his motor vehicle on, a certain route. There arises absolutely no question, of staying the execution of the order under appeal; an order refusing to issue certiorari or mandamus is not an order capable of execution.
What the petitioner really requires is a positive relief and not a relief against the operation of the order appealed from. O.45, R.13, does not empower the court to grant such interim relief. I further agree with my learned brother that the subject matter of appeal is the refusal of this ourt to grant certiorari or mandamus; no practical direction in respect of this refusal can be granted.

3. I also agree with my learned brother that S. 151 CPC also is not applicable.

4. I had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother Bishambhar Dayal also, but with great respect I do not agree with it.
Jagdish Sahai, J.

5. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question referred by a Bench consisting of our brothers Beg and Srivastava :
"When a Writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been decided and the necessary certificate for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court as required under the Constitution has been granted has this Court jurisdiction to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1961 Supreme(Online)(All) 47

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTJagdish Sahai, Bishambhar Dayal, JJKalyan Singh – AppellantVersusState of U.P. – RespondentWrit Petition | Appeal

The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.

Cases Referred (1)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jagdish Sahai, Bishambhar Dayal, JJ
Kalyan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition | Appeal