Disposed¶9

M/S Vardan Construction v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020WRIC/3922/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim relief refused despite admission of statutory appeal; suspension of operation of impugned order during pendency of appeal; Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963; certiorari; Appeal No. 348 of 2019; Mool Chand Yadav (1982) 3 SCC 484; Daroga 1996 (14) LCD 540; four-week direction to appellate authority; six-week interim stay; M/s Vardan Construction v. State of U.P.; WRIT - C No. 3922 of 2020; order dated 13.2.2020.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to decide Appeal No. 348 of 2019 positively within four weeks from production of a certified copy of the order; interim stay of the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 for six weeks or until the appeal is decided, whichever is earlier. ¶9

M/S Vardan Construction Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent no. 2 was obliged to grant interim relief / suspend the operation of the order under challenge during the pendency of the petitioner's admitted statutory appeal, the interim relief having been refused by order dated 06.11.2019.

¶7

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide Appeal No. 348 of 2019 (M/s Vardan Construction Proprietor Shreshtha Kumar Sahu versus State of U.P.).

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the appeal positively within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before him.

¶9

Key takeaways

For six weeks from the date of the order, or until the appeal is decided, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 shall remain stayed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (certiorari) by M/s Vardan Construction against the order dated 06.11.2019 of respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's statutory appeal preferred under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963 was admitted but its application for interim relief was rejected. Relying on Mool Chand Yadav v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd, (1982) 3 SCC 484 and Daroga v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, 1996 (14) LCD 540 (Lucknow Bench), the Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent no. 2 to decide Appeal No. 348 of 2019 (M/s Vardan Construction Proprietor Shreshtha Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P.) positively within four weeks of production of a certified copy of the order, and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 for six weeks or until the appeal was decided, whichever was earlier.

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3922 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Vardan Construction Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3 and Smt. Archana Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal preferred by him before the respondent no. 2 has been admitted but the respondent no. 2 has refused to grant interim relief by order dated 06.11.2019 thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another V. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484, observed that during the pendency of appal, the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended, more so when appeal is admitted. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Daroga and another v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division. Gorakhpur. 1996 (14) LCD 540, wherein this Court has held that it is established principle of law that during the pendency of appeal where right of parties are yet to be adjudicated, the interim orders may be passed in order to preserve the situation.

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that a statutory appeal along with stay application for grant of interim relief was preferred by the petitioner before respondent no. 2 as provided under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was admitted by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 06.11.2019 but the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief has been rejected by the impugned order. It is settled law as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (supra) that during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of the impugned order must be suspended.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the Appeal No. 348 of 2019 (M/s Vardan Construction Proprietor Shreshtha Kumar Sahu Versus State of U.P.) positively within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶10

For the period of six weeks from today or till the appeal is decided whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 SA

M/S Vardan Construction v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vardan Construction v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Mittal Vs Brajesh Kumar Agarwal Alias Mintu

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Dharmwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Durga Dutt Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Shreebamdev Global Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others