IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Vs. MUNEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on 29 -07 -2002 had directed the parties not to change the position on thee spot till the dispute is decided by the Revenue Authority who is already seized of the matter. It is not the order of dismissal of the writ petition but the direction of status quo which has irked the appellant and is challenged through this LPA. Mr. Qayoom appearing counsel for the appellant questions the power of the writ court to make such orders. The challenge thrown has given rise to a short but an important question which may be summarized:

(2.) IN an attempt to persuade us to answer the question in affirmative the LC has made reference to K. Dsaradharami Reddy petitioner Vs. Union of India respondent (AIR 1969 page 39) and V.J. Mathew appellant Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Konni respondent (AIR 1957 Kerala page 113). These Single Bench judgments of the High Court, no doubt, do have persuasive value but the verdict cannot prevent us to take a contrary view. Otherwise also the facts are quiet dissimilar, therefore, these judgments have no application to the rationale of this case. How far decision of the Constitution Bench of the apex court in State of Orisa Vs. Madan Gopal reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 helps the contention of the LC for the appellant needs to be appreciated in the light of the facts of the judgment aforementioned where the High Court expressly refused to make any observation with respect to the contentions of the parties and granted an interim relief because the respondents could not file a suit till expiry of the period of 60 days, a requirement envisaged by section 80 of Civil Procedure Code and the court thought it appropriate to grant an interim relief so as to save them from an irreparable loss. In nutshell the High Court refused to investigate and pronounce the judgment on the rights of the parties leaving the civil court free to determine the issues involved. This order was set aside by the Supreme Court on the ground that once the High Court declined to decide the rights of the parties it could not pass an order of injunction to be in force in the interval.

(3.) NOW a glance on the facts of this case. It is a case where parallel proceedings are pending and considering the logical basis of the case, the writ court has directed the parties to maintain status quo till orders are passed in parallel proceedings and an interim direction which was passed at the very inception of the writ petition was in operation on the date of final disposal. That apart, it is not a case where petitioners have been granted time to approach the civil court. Obviously, the set of facts and reasons are distinguishable. It is not end of the matter because the Supreme Court has not excluded the possibility of future eventualities which may form exception to the generality of the expressions used in the judgment as is evident from the observation made in the judgment itself which may be noticed: 6. This is not a case where the court before finally disposing of a petition under Article 226 gave directions in the nature of interim relief for the purpose of maintaining the status quo.... 