IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Vs. MUNEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned single judge while dismissing the writ petition on 29.07.2002 has directed the parties not to change the position on the 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 hut 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 summarised:-

(2.) In an attempt to persuade us to answer the question in affirmative the LC has made reference to K.Dsaradharami Reddy versus union of India,1969 AIR(SC) 39 and v. J. Mathew versus divisional forest officer Konni, 1957 AIR(Ker) 113. These single bench judgments of the high court, no doubt, do have persuaso five value but the verdict can not prevent us to take a contrary view. Otherwise also the facts are quiet dismillar, therefore, these judgements have no application to the rationales of this case. How for decision of the constitution bench of the apex court in state of Orisa versus Madan Gopal, 1952 AIR(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 are 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 the 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 expression used in the judgment as is evident from the observation made in the judgment itself which may be noticed.