Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Singh Bhadoriya vs Narendra Sachdeva on 10 November, 2017
1 WA 951/17
Ajt Singh Bhadoriya Vs. Narendra Sachdeva & others
10/11/17
Shri R.D.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri N.K.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri S.D.Singh, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for the State.
1. This intra court appeal filed under Section 2(i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 2005") assails the final order dated 9/10/2017 of dismissal of W.P.No. 5650/17 purported to be filed u/Art. 227 of the Constitution wherein the challenge was made to the interlocutory order dated 18/8/2017, P/1 passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority for brevity the STAT to the extent the same rejects the prayer for stay made by the appellant herein.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that despite the respondent No.3 appellant herein before the learned single judge raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground of the same having been filed against the interlocutory order, the learned single judge had not rendered any finding in that respect and yet went ahead without dwelling into merits of the case to dispose of the petition with a direction to the STAT to decide the application pending before it expeditiously preferably within 3 (three) weeks with a further direction that the interim order passed earlier in the petition on 30/8/2017 shall remain in force till decision of the appeal pending before the STAT. 3.1 It is trite law that when an objection regarding maintainability of a case is raised especially when the same relates to a statutory bar [provision to Sec.2 (i) of the Act of 2005 herein as regards entertainment of writ appeal against interlocutory order], the court 2 WA 951/17 Ajt Singh Bhadoriya Vs. Narendra Sachdeva & others should first deal with the same and thereafter dwell into other aspects of the matter.
3.2 When the order of the learned single judge is tested on the anvil of settled law as aforesaid, it is evident that without deciding the question of maintainability of a writ petition against an interlocutory order, the learned single judge ought not to have passed any further order which may relates to merits. Allowing interim relief to continue till decision of the appeal pending before the STAT in no uncertain terms impacts upon the rights and liabilities of the rival parties and therefore pre-supposed indulgence in the process of adjudication on the merits of the case.
4. Accordingly to the extent the order of the learned single judge directs for continuance of interim order dated 30/8/2017 till the decision of appeal bearing No 77/2017 pending before the STAT, Gwalior the same deserves interference at the hands of this court.
5. Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order dated 9/10/2017 directing continuance of interim relief dated 30/8/2017 till decision of the appeal pending before the STAT, Gwalior.
6. In case the appeal before STAT continues to be pending then W.P.No.5650/17 stands restored to it's original number for the single bench to adjudicate the issue of maintainability of W.P. and thereafter to dwell into other issues of decision arises.
No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
10/11/2017 10/11/2017
(Bu)