9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (10) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 area. Some of the petitioners alleged that they had spent money on the development of the mines and installed machinery to work the same. It is however common ground that there was no registered lease in favour of any of the respondents before 1947. On the 14th December, 1947, the Ruler of Keonjhar entered into a merger agreement with the Dominion of India and as from the 1st January, 1948, the State was merged in the Dominion of India. After signing the merger agreement the Ruler gave registered leases on the 27th Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f annulment relied upon by the State was applicable to the mining leases granted to the petitioners, or in the alternative, whether the State had any right in law to cancel the leases before the period mentioned therein." Referring to the contention of the State rounded on the acceptance by the respondents of the temporary permits and the estoppel arising therefrom, Ray C.J. in his judgment stated 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment it was stated, "In the result, the petitions are allowed in part to the limited extent indicated above." Narasimham J. agreed with the order set out in the judgment of the Chief Justice although his judgment shows the concurrence to be very halting. He stated that although he was reluctant to exercise the powers under article 226 because the present respondents could file a suit, yet as in view of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code there would be an unavoidable delay resulting in irreparable loss to the respondents he agreed that the order should be passed as mentioned in the judgment of the Chief Justice, Towards the end of his judgment he stated as follows:- "It sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t their observations should not in any way be considered as deciding any of the rights or contentions of the parties raised in the petitions. The whole judgment shows that because of the requirement of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code the present respondents could not file a suit against the Government for at least sixty days, the respondent's position should not in the interval be disturbed and accordingly the Court gave the directions in its order of the 2nd of August, 1951. If there was any doubt about the nature of the relief desired to be granted by the order of 2nd August the same Judges have made it perfectly clear by their order of the 6th of August, wherein they have stated that except for these directions they were not prepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermine is whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under article 226, when the Court expressly stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a like nature could be issued. In our opinion, article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court has purported to do. The directions have been given here only to circumvent the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and in our opinion that is not within the scope of article 226. An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
