2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5973

[1]

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH, AT JABALPUR (DIVISION BENCH)

MP-3494-2020 Atul Kumar Ben and another ….…….. Petitioners Vs.

Union of India and others ……… Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence :

Mrs. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4/Railways.

Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

Mr. Satendra Singh Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.8. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Laid Down:

➔ Any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, in the facts of the case, must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the Court. No litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges into the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and [2]

thereafter blame the Court. Maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court.

➔ As a consequence of withdrawal of petition after obtaining interim order, the said interim order stands cancelled/vacated. Moreso, when the litigants do not know this legal position, they should be informed by the Court of the consequences so that they may take an informed decision about withdrawal or abandoning the petition as not pressed. The consequences of the dismissal of the petition must expressly spell out. Such explicit directions have become necessary to check a raising trend among litigants to secure the relief as an interim measure, and then avoid adjudication on merits, particularly in matters relating to examinations and recruitment. Even though the legal effect of dismissal on withdrawal, is vacation of the interim order, the concerned respondents, not being aware of the legal consequences, will not take consequential action but continue the benefit extended to the petitioner by the interim order, unless there is a specific direction spelling out the consequences. In cases where the prayer for dismissal (as not pressed or withdrawn) is made even before the respondent is served, then the order vacating the interim order should be communicated to the authority against whom the interim order was issued, so that any benefit extended as a consequence of the interim order, can be withdrawn or reversed.

➔ Fairness to the litigant requires that the Court, when a request for dismissal is made, should inform or indicate to the petitioner or his counsel that as a consequence of such dismissal, the benefit of the interim relief already granted will be revoked or withdrawn.

➔ The Court referred:

Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and •

other reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437;

[3]

Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in •

1992 (2) SCC 620 : AIR 1992 SC 1888;

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors. v. Pune Municipal •

Corporation & Anr. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 33;

Abhimanyoo Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another •

reported in (2008) 17 SCC 73;

• Union of India and others vs. Ram Kumar Thakur reported in (2009) 1 SCC 122;

Nagar Mahapalika vs. State of U.P. and others reported in •

(2006) 5 SCC 127;

• Union of India vs. G.R. Prabhavalkar and others reported in (1973) 4 SCC 183;

Nagesh Datta Sheti and others vs. State of Karnataka and other •

reported in (2005) 10 SCC 383. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Significant paragraphs: 11 to 18. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heard on : 06.08.2021 (Hearing Convened through Video Conferencing) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------