TMI Blog1951 (10) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of article 226 does not permit such an action. On that short ground the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be upheld. - Cases Nos. 300 to 304 of 1951 - - - Dated:- 25-10-1951 - KANIA, HIRALAL J. , SASTRI, M. PATANJALI, MUKHERJEA, B.K., DAS, SUDHI RANJAN AND AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA, JJ. JUDGMENT: For the Appellant : M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India with G. N. Joshi, For the Respondent: N.C. Chatterjee with H.J. Umrigar, A.N. Roy, Roshan Lal, A.N. Sinha, KANIA C.J.- These are five companion appeals from the judgment of the High Court at Orissa, delivered on five petitions filed by the respondent in each of the appeals, to obtain from the Court a writ of mandamus and/or directions under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Each of the respondents alleged that between 1941 and 1947 he had agreed to take from the Ruler of Keonjhar a mining lease and had entered into possession of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows :--"In determining the validity of this contention (relating to the temporary permit and estoppel arising therefrom) the circumstances under which these applications were made and the legal implications of such applications and the permissions granted under them will have to be considered. It is remote from our intention to express any opinion in this summary proceeding as to the respective merits of the rival contentions. I am however satisfied that in the context of events and in the logic of circumstances attending thereto there is a case to be tried." He next considered the scope of the writ of mandamus and came to the conclusion that "at the moment" the respondents had no alternative legal remedy, equally convenient, beneficial and effectual because the respondents could not file a suit till after the expiry of the period of sixty days required for the purpose under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and he thought that unless protected by the Court in the meanwhile the respondents would undergo irreparable and irremediable loss of possession of the mining leases involving a huge waste of labour, machinery and other resources of equipments of immense value hard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this order to enable the Government of Orissa to appeal against the order of the 2nd of August. The same Judges on the 6th of August stayed the operation of the order for fifteen days and observed as follows :-- "The effect of the order (of 2nd August, 1951) is that except giving them (respondents in these appeals) some interim measure of relief for the period during which the petitioners were without remedy, we were not inclined to accept the petition and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, as prayed for." The State of Orissa has come on appeal to us and after hearing the arguments on both sides we came to the conclusion that the order of the High Court could not be sustained. We accordingly passed the following order on the 15th of October: "These five appeals are allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside in each case. As the High Court has passed no other orders on the petitions. and indeed has stated that the Court was not prepared to pass any ,other orders on the petitions, the petitions stand dismissed. The respondents will pay the costs of the appeals. We shall give our reasons later on." Our reasons are these: Article ,226 of the Constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed to be filed by the present respondents, they gave directions for interim relief till such suit was filed. It must be noted that with the passing of the order of the 2nd August, 1951, containing directions in the nature of interim relief the petitions were completely disposed of and have not been kept pending for disposal. Those directions embody therefore the final order passed by the Court on these petitions. A preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the appeals on the ground that no final orders were passed on the petitions. That objection must fail in view of the fact that with these orders the petitions were disposed of finally and nothing further remained to be done in respect of the petitions. The fact that the operation of the order is limited to three months or a week after the filing of the intended suit does not prevent the order from being final. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such orders under article 226 under the circumstances of the case. This is not a case where the Court before finally disposing of a petition under article 226 gave directions in the nature of interim relief for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
