Dismissed

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Thru. Its Commissioner and 2 Others v. Abhishek Verma Thru His Father Chandra Pal and 6 Others

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2022/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that a special appeal challenging an interlocutory interim order granting provisional admission is not maintainable. The court dismissed the special appeal, noting the order did not decide any substantive issue.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable being an interlocutory order.

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Thru. Its Commissioner… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 198 of 2022 Appellant :- Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Thru. Its Commissioner And 2 Others Respondent :- Abhishek Verma Thru His Father Chandra Pal And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nishant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Himanshu Kamboj,A.S.G.I.,Amit Dwivedi

¶2

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nishant Shukla, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Sri Himanshu Kamboj, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.1 to 6 and Sri M.M. Asthana, learned counsel representing the respondent no.7.

¶4

Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay has sufÏciently been explained.

¶5

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No.02 of 2022) is allowed and the delay in preferring the special appeal is hereby condoned.

¶6

This special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court assails the validity of the interim order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.4910 of 2022.

¶7

By the order under appeal, learned Single Judge has only provided, as an interim measure, that the respondent nos.1 to 6 - petitioners shall be granted the provisional admission in the Institution concerned without insisting upon any documents relating to address proof etc.

¶8

Considering the fact that respondent nos.1 to 6 - petitioners are studying in the same district since Class III and also considering that admittedly against an interlocutory order, special appeal before Division Bench under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of

¶9

the Rules of the Court is not maintainable, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.

¶10

Learned counsel representing the appellants however, states that the order under appeal has decided an issue and accordingly the order has the trapping of a judgment and hence special appeal would be maintainable.

¶11

When we consider the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellant, what we find that the learned Single Judge has provided that the respondent nos.1 to 6 - petitioners shall be admitted provisionally and as such, the said provisional admission shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, accordingly learned Single Judge has not decided any issue by the order under appeal herein.

¶12

The order under challenge is interlocutory in nature, which does not require any interference by this Court in this special appeal.

¶13

This special appeal is, thus, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 30.9.2022 Rahul

¶15

Digitally signed by RAHUL TRIPATHI Date: 2022.10.01 17:36:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Thru. Its Commissioner and 2 Others v. Abhishek Verma Thru His Father Chandra Pal and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Thru. Its Commissioner and 2 Others v. Abhishek Verma Thru His Father Chandra Pal and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Sharma Vs Smt. Sandhya Sharma and Anr.

Ashutosh Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors.

Gajanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Devolopment Lko. and 6 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Railway Board and 3 Others Vs Central Administrative Tribunal Lko and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko and Others

Ram Sagar and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial , Faizabad and Another