Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The contentions of the appellant, as raised in the Writ Appeals filed on 16.4.2013, are that the order of ex parte stay of the Regulations granted by the learned single Judge virtually meant allowing of the Writ Petitions themselves. The appellant contends that given the presumption of constitutionality of the Regulations, the Court ought not to have granted the order of interim stay. Contending that the interim stay granted on 21.2.2013 and 24.1.2013, as the case may be, were through non-speaking orders, the Writ Appellant herein pointed out that when the vacate stay petitions were filed as early as 22.2.2013 and 18.02.2013 respectively as against the ex parte orders passed by this Court, instead of taking up the vacate stay petitions, learned single Judge proceeded to hear the main Writ Petitions themselves. Quoting Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India that where an application for vacate stay is filed and the same has not been disposed within a period of two weeks, stay would be deemed to have been automatically vacated, the appellant projected their grievance that the learned single Judge had not disposed of the applications for vacation of the stay, which would be in total violation of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India; consequently, the stay order granted had become non-est as of today.

11. He further placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1990 Mad 62 (R.Kannan and others V. Indchem Electronics Ltd.); (2009) 9 SCC 435 (Prabhjot Singh Mand & Others V. Bhagwant Singh & Others); (2005) 5 SCC 531 (Achal Misra V. Rama Shanker Singh & Others); 2008 (4) CTC 212 (Emkay Exports V. Madhusudhan); (2009) 2 SCC 784 (Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assocition (2) V. S.C.Sekar & Others and (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Others V.Chunilal Nanda & Others) and submitted that with the public injury writ large on account of the interim stay granted, the order merited to be vacated.

37. As already pointed out, the hearing of the case in the main Writ Petitions had taken place for more than one day, even as on the date of filing of the Writ Appeals. As seen from the cause list, the Writ Petitions were posted for hearing at 2.15 p.m. at the instance of the parties on more than one occasion. Thus, on the facts stated herein, when the appellant had not elected to insist on the hearing of the vacate stay petitions, we fail to understand how these Writ Appeals could be maintained at all. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that when the appellant has not filed a counter in the main Writ Petitions, how at all the hearing in the main Writ Petitions will go on. We do not think, such a question at this stage could be raised even to draw as an inference that the hearing was only on the vacate stay petitions, particularly in the face of the record showing that there was only a notice regarding admission, returnable in two weeks. A reading of the counter affidavit filed shows that the same was filed in the Writ Petitions and the discussions in the counter were on every aspect of the allegations contained and the other grounds taken in the Writ Petitions. It is no doubt true that the last paragraph seeks an order to vacate the stay granted in the Writ Petitions. But by this, one cannot say that the counter filed was incomplete, requiring further affidavit to be filed. In any event, nothing prevented the appellant from placing this before the learned single Judge. With the awareness on the part of the appellant herein on the counter filed in the Writ Petitions, when the knowledge of the appellant was very much there before the Court on the hearing of the main Writ Petitions itself, we feel, the line of contention taken by the appellant is only a last straw in the matter and hence liable to be rejected in toto.

42. In the unreported decision of this Court dated 22.4.2013 in W.A.No.572 of 2013 (Union of India V. State of Tamil Nadu & Others), we find that the Writ Appeal itself was filed against the interlocutory order granted by the learned single Judge granting an order of interim injunction. The Union of India challenged the interim order granted on the dual pricing on the supply of petroleum products. On a specific question raised as to whether a Writ Appeal would lie as against the interim order granted, this Court referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1981 SC 1786 (Shah Babulal Khimji V. Jayaben D. Kania and another) and AIR 2001 SC 883 (Employer in Relation to Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd., V. Union of India and another) and held that though the interim order passed by the learned single Judge does not decide the case finally and every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment, yet, when the order materially or directly affects the appellant, where the oil marketing companies would be required to supply diesel at the rate at which they were supplying to the retail consumers, thereby causing daily loss to the Oil Marketing Companies running into several crores of rupees and burdening the appellant in grant of subsidy, when orders affect the vital and valuable rights of the parties and cause serious prejudice to the party concerned, appeal would be maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In so holding, this Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (5) SCC 399 (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. V. Chunilal Nanda) and upheld the Writ Appeal filed as regards the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This Court further considered the question on the interim order passed without assigning reasons. Referring to a series of decisions, this Court held that, to vacate the order passed on the ground that the learned single Judge had not given any reason while passing an order of injunction, consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss caused to the respondent while passing the impugned order, are necessary. Thus, this Court referred to the decisions of the Apex Court and ultimately vacated the order of injunction granted. This Court also pointed out that the question as to whether the policy decision taken by the Government could be interfered with or not is a matter to be gone into in the main Writ Petition and rejected the plea of the Government that policy decisions of the Government could not be interfered.