UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARLA KOUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing both sides namely the appellant and the respondent, Division Bench by an order dated 14 -02 -2002 stayed the operation of the Judgement. Once the interim orders were passed after hearing both the sides except in the change of the circumstances there is no reason to entertain an application for modifying the order. The party claiming that it is likely to face difficulties, it was open to make request to the court for early hearing of the matter. Learned Judges were aware about the situation and therefore while passing the order observed that even matter will be taken earlier if request is made jointly by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not the case of the applicant that both the sides requested jointly to the Division Bench and the matter could not be taken up for hearing.

(2.) BECAUSE of the nature of the order learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before us that the applicant has a right to file an application as there is violation of fundamental right namely right to life. Rights which are conferred on the applicant under the Constitution ought to have been pointed out to the Division Bench while hearing the application. Having found no substance, the court has stayed the judgement. It will be for the court of hearing the matter finally to confirm or vary the final order which was passed after hearing the parties appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the judgement in the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. : reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 and A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak and Anr. Reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 1531 it is the duty of the respondent not to deprive the person of fundamental right namely right to life.