STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. B D TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devang Trivedi for the respondent.

(2.) THIS Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the interim orders dated 25.06.2010 and 26.02.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1209 of 2010.

(3.) THE Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others V/s. Ram Sukhi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 733 wherein in paragraph 8, the Apex Court clearly held that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision is extracted below :- To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. THE final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. THEre was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. THE position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (1985 (3) SCC 217 at p.224), State of U.P. and Ors. v. Visheshwar (1995 Supp (3) SCC 590), Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.