Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Heard Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 prays for and is granted some time to file reply.

Let a copy of the writ petition be served to the counsel for the respondent No. 5.

Let the respondents may not precipitate further things by any order so that this petition or any interim prayer become infructuous to give rise to multiplicity of proceedings.

List the case in the week commencing 23rd August, 2021.

In the meanwhile, if reply is filed then learned counsel for the petitioner may file the rejoinder."

23. A careful perusal of order dated 26-7-2021 extracted herein-above (para 7) would show that on that day, writ petition was entertained, copy of writ petition was directed to be served to counsel for respondent No.5 and the learned Single Judge while passing the order has clearly observed that "let the respondents may not precipitate further things by any order so that this petition or any interim prayer become infructuous to give rise to multiplicity of proceedings". Thereafter, reply was filed by respondent No.5 on 26-8- 2021 and the matter was taken-up for hearing on 28-9-2021. As such, for the first time, on 28-9-2021, the question of grant of interim relief was considered bi-parte by the learned Single Judge after serving copy of writ petition and filing of reply, though hearing on I.A.No.2, application for vacating stay, was mentioned in the order sheet, but the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has considered the question of grant of stay in favour of the writ petitioner after hearing all parties for the first time on 28-9-2021 and prior to that, order dated 26- 7-2021 was only an order issuing notice as at that time even copy of the writ petition was not served to respondent No.5 and for the first time, on 28-9-2021, the question of interim relief to the writ petitioner / appellant herein was considered after hearing all parties to the writ petition, as on 26-7-2021, the writ petition was heard only on the question of admission and the respondents had no say on that day on any issue / question of interim relief to the writ appellant, as respondent No.5 did not have copy of writ petition. As such, the writ petitioner / appellant herein has not suffered any prejudice on account of not giving additional opportunity to file reply to the application for vacating stay, in fact on 28-9-2021, all the parties were heard on the question of grant of stay to the writ petitioner after filing reply / return, etc.. Therefore, the writ petitioner / appellant herein has not suffered any prejudice on account of non-grant of further opportunity to file reply to the application for vacating stay, and on hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on deeper consideration, we find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant herein and we hereby reject the said submission.