Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19924
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No(s). 6122 of 2025)
Decided on: 03.03.2025
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Mr. Nishant Chothani, Adv., Mr. Ankit Lohia, Adv., Mr. Atman Mehta, Adv., Mr. Vipul Patel, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR, Mrs. Mahima C Shroff, Adv., Mr. Anand Thumbayil, Adv., Mr. Sushant Dogra, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR
Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Judgment reserved -- Vacation of stay order – Requirement of law -- Interim relief was in operation for two and a half years -- While reserving the order, fairness required that the interim relief should have been continued for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the order vacating stay – Direction given that interim order shall continue to operate till the order/judgment in the writ petition is pronounced -- If the writ petition is dismissed, the High Court will extend the interim relief for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the final order.
(Para 3, 4)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, on 30th August, 2022, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, while granting time to the respondents, granted interim relief in terms of paragraph 5 thereof. The interim relief granted on that day was extended from time to time. The writ petition was finally heard on 12th February, 2025 and order was reserved. The order of 12th February, 2025 was digitally signed and uploaded on 17th February, 2025. By the said order, while reserving the order, the interim relief which was operating from 30th August, 2022 was vacated.
3. In our view what is done by the High Court under the order dated 12th February, 2025 was not appropriate. If the High Court was of the view that there was no merit in the writ petition filed by the appellant, the High Court could have dismissed the writ petition on that day so that the appellant could have challenged the said order. Even assuming that the High Court had some justification in vacating the interim relief which was in operation for two and a half years, while reserving the order, fairness required that the interim relief should have been continued for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the order vacating stay. Even that was not done. All Benches of the High Court pass large number of orders every day. Therefore, it takes time to correct, sign and upload the order. When an interim relief was operative for two and a half years, it was necessary for the Court to extend the same for a reasonable time so that the appellant could get a copy of the order and challenge the same.
4. We do not approve this approach on the part of the High Court. Now that the order in the writ petition has been reserved, we direct that the interim order dated 30th August, 2022 shall continue to operate till the order/judgment in the writ petition is pronounced. We make it clear that if the writ petition is dismissed, the High Court will extend the interim relief for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the final order.
5. The Appeal is disposed of on the above terms. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petition and all the issues are left open to be decided by the High Court.
6. Pending applications, including the application seeking intervention/impleadment, are disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********