SPA/1032/2018 of SMT SAVITA CHAUDHARY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 21 December 2018

Conclusion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALSpecial Appeal No. 1032 of 2018

Smt. Savita Chaudhary

...Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another

...Respondents

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

Dated: 21[st] December, 2018

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

This appeal is preferred against the proceedings dated 12.12.2018 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2051 of 2018 contending that refusal by the learned Single Judge to grant an interim order would confer on the appellant-writ petitioner a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Division Bench. The proceedings, impugned in the writ petition, is dated 12.12.2018 which reads thus:

“Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

As prayed, two weeks’ time is granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file objection to the interim relief application.

List this matter in the week commencing

07.01.2019.”

2. All that the learned Single Judge has done is to grant the learned Standing Counsel two weeks’ time to file their objections to the Interim Relief Application, and has directed that the matter be listed in the week commencing 07.01.2019. Hearing of the Interim Relief Application has merely been deferred till the week commencing 07[th] January, 2019.

3. The question which necessitates examination is whether an intra-Court appeal would lie against such a proceeding. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules reads as under:

“5. Special appeal. – An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.”

4. It is evident, therefrom, that it is only against a judgment, order or decree, that too those not falling within the exceptions, would an intra-Court appeal lie to a Division Bench. An order, deferring hearing of the Interim Relief Application, would not constitute rejection of the interim order or a refusal to grant an interim order by the learned Single Judge.

5. All that the learned Single Judge has done is to permit the respondents to file their objections to the Interim Relief Application filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. Deferring hearing of the Interim Relief Application would not confer on the appellant-writ petitioner a right to invoke the intra-Court jurisdiction of the Division Bench. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this appeal.

6. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would then seek a direction to the learned Single Judge to hear the matter at the earliest. While it would be wholly inappropriate for us to determine the Board of the learned Single Judge, we have no reason to doubt that, on a request being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for an early hearing of the Interim Relief Application, the learned Single Judge would give such a request its due consideration.

7. The Special Appeal, however, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 21.12.2018 Rahul

(Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 21.12.2018