Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- It is indeed a great pity and we wish we did not have to say it but we are afraid we will be signally failing in our duty if we do not do so some courts, of late, appear to have developed an unwarranted tendency to grant interim orders with a great potential for public. mischief for the mere asking. We feel greatly disturbed. We find it more distressing that such interim orders, often ex parte and non speaking are made even by the High Courts while entertaining writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and in the Calcutta High Court, on oral application too. Recently in Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd v. S. Samuel (Civil Appeal No. 4416 of 1984) (reported in AIR 1985 SC61), we had occasion to condemn and prohibit this practice of entertaining oral applications under Art 226 and passing interim orders thereon. In several other cases, Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das (1984) 2 SCC 436, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433, Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd (1984) 2 SCC 646. Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. C. A. No, 11450 of 1983, this court was forced to point out how wrong it was to make interi