S.K.SAHANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXCEPTION in these appeals under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is sought to an interlocutory order dated 13.7.2015, passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.18798/2013 [Published in 2015 (II) MPWN 148] by which an interim order earlier granted on 7.7.2014 has been vacated. Similarly in Writ Appeal.No.423/ 2015, identical order passed in Writ Petition No.4617/2014 on the same date i.e. 13.7.2015 vacating an interim order earlier passed on 15.9.2014is under challenge. As question of law and facts involved in both these appeals are identical in nature, we propose to deal with the matter by this common order.

(2.) THE appellants have challenged the grant of catering contract to the private respondents so also the Catering Policy, 2010 in the original writ petitions and itis said that the catering policy is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Both the appellants herein who were granted licence to carry out the catering activities at Railway Stations Katni and Satna filed the writ petition and challenged the contract granted, they also moved interlocutory applications. Initially the learned writ Court granted the interim stay only on the ground that the catering policy is under challenge before the Supreme Court and interlocutory orders are passed by the Supreme Court, however, after interim order was passed, applications were filed for vacation of stay by the Railway administration and the application for vacation of interim orders having been allowed by the impugned order, these writ appeals have been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(3.) SHRI S.A. Dharmadhikari, appearing learned counsel for the appellants took us through the policy or stay granted by this Court on 7.7.2014 in Writ Petition No. 18798/2013 and argued that the Supreme Court has granted stay which is still continued and therefore, the learned writ Court should not have interfered in the matter, as the policy in question which is challenged is sub judice before the Supreme Court. He further tried to indicate that the applications filed by the appellants for renewal of their lease are pending consideration, therefore, stay could not be vacated.