LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-307

BASUDEV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On May 21, 2012
BASUDEV Appellant
V/S
State of U.P. and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is that so long as his application dated 31.3.2012 filed before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal seeking stay of recovery proceedings pursuant to the award dated 01.11.2011 in M.A.C.P. No.767 of 2010 is not disposed of, the aforesaid recovery be stayed by this Court. In effect this writ petition is only confined to a temporary stay order till the petitioner's stay application pending before the Court below is disposed of.

(2.) It is a thoroughly misconceived prayer and in my view is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is evident that on petitioner's aforesaid stay application, the Court below has already issued notice to the respondents fixing 30.5.2012 inviting objections and for disposal on priority basis. Whether an interim order should be granted in favour of petitioner is a matter yet to be decided by the Court below which is seized of the matter. Any observation, if made by this Court or such an order if is granted by this Court, that will amount to prejudge the issue and influence the Court below in exercising its jurisdiction on petitioner's stay application in a particular manner. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that if this Court passes an order granting an interim relief in a particular manner, an application pending for interim relief before the Court below in all likelihood has to follow the same course. It would be extremely and practically difficult for the Court below to take a view otherwise. Moreover, no writ petition lie only for the purpose of a stay order. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus i.e. to grant only a stay order as the final relief till disposal of his application before the Court below. Though it is true that in the writ petition the petitioner has referred to disposal of his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 seeking recall of the award in M.A.C.P.No. 767 of 2010 but the identical application admittedly is already pending before the Court below and the matter is seized thereat.