TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be determined after hearing the parties on merits - Following the decision in State of H.P. & ors. Vs. Prem Lal - the preliminary objection raised by the respondent fails and is rejected - the interim direction i.e. stay order granted is adversely affecting the respondent since the actions which are to be drawn in a time bound manner would become time barred or not, since the parties have not argued the cases on merits, it is not fair to return findings whether the stay is to be vacated or to be made absolute - it is made clear that in case any action becomes time barred in the interregnum, the period from the date of passing of the stay order shall be excluded, while computing the time limit - the writ petition is to be hear expeditiously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petitions on the ground that the orders, impugned in the writ petitions, already stand implemented and therefore, he submitted that the writ petitions have become infructuous. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the interim direction i.e. stay order granted is adversely affecting the respondent because the respondent is not in a position to draw proceedings as per the mandate of law and by efflux of time, the said proceedings would become time barred. 5. On the other hand, Mr.N.K. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the petitioners have questioned the impugned show cause notices and orders on various grounds taken in the writ petitions and the Court has to determine all such issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court that as by way of an interim order the award was directed to be implemented, the same should itself form the basis for dismissing the writ petition. 21. The High Court exercised its discretion in not granting an interim relief in favour of the Appellant. In view of the refusal on the part of the High Court to grant an interim relief as was prayed for by the Appellant, the Appellant implemented the award pending the appeal which can only be subject to appeal, that would not mean that the High Court would not or should not go into the merit of the matter. In fact it is the duty of the High Court to consider the appeal on merits. It is unfortunate that the writ petition filed in the year 1989 has been disposed of in 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the confusion to a great measure by not seeking stay of direction. In given cases the Court/Forum to which the matter is remitted can await decision in the appeal where the directions given are impugned. A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal pursuant to the direction given by learned Single Judge has been placed on record. It clearly shows that the Tribunal acted only on the basis of the direction given and on that ground alone granted occupancy rights. 8. The High Court was not justified in holding that the writ appeal had been rendered infructuous because of the subsequent decision of the Tribunal. Correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge was being challenged in the writ appeal. Any decision taken by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble contempt proceedings that did not take away the right of the appellants to prefer an appeal and question correctness of the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment. 5. It has been noted by this Court that if even in cases where interim relief is not granted in favour of the applicant and the order is implemented that does not furnish a ground for not entertaining the appeal to be heard on merits. (See : Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. [2006 (5) SCC 127]. Similar view was also take in Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Karnataka [2005(10) SCC 383]. 6. In Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar Ors. [1973(4) SCC 183] it was observed at para 23 as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
