Petitioner challenged dismissal order of the college principal. Court held Article 226 does not support granting interim relief or temporary injunctions when the writ court declines to adjudicate merits and directs filing a civil suit for proper investigation of rights.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13393 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Ashok Kumar Dewedi S/O Prof. Dr. Bipin Bihari Sharan Dewedi R/O Village- Parvatya Sadan, West Police Line Road, Rampur, Gaya, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar (Secretary, High Education), Bihar, Patna 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya 3. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya 4. The Principal, Arbind Kumar Tiwary Shakya Muni College, Bodh-Gaya 5. The Finance Officer, Shakya Muni College, Bodh-Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Lallan Singh, Adv. For the University : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER
2 13-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the University. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 13.3.2012 passed by the Principal, Arbind Kumar Tiwary Shakya Muni College, Bodh Gaya. The college is stated to be affiliated to the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Dr. Professor Jagdanand Brahamchari was also similarly dismissed from service by the Principal. In C.W.J.C. No. 8719 of 2012, the Court stayed the functioning of the Governing
Patna High Court CWJC No.13393 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012
2 / 4
body proposed by the Principal of the college as approved by the University on 20.12.2001 with directions to consider formation of a regular governing body proposed through the
Managing Committee of the college.
Counsel for the University submits that the order dated 4.7.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 8719 of 2012 has to be understood as prospective. There is no direction that decision already taken by the earlier governing body shall remain in abeyance. He next relies on A.I.R 1952 SC 12 ( State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta ) to contend that after the writ Court declines jurisdiction under Article 226 it cannot issue directions of an interim nature which will continue to operate even after the Court declines jurisdiction till the aggrieved does not avail the appropriate remedy.
It is considered appropriate to quote the relevant extract from Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the same as
follows:-
5. …..The result therefore is that while the Judges declined to investigate and pronounce on the rights of the parties and expressly kept the determination thereof in abeyance in the suit proposed 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 2-3-1951 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….”
6………The question which we have to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13393 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012
3 / 4
determine is whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under Art. 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, Art. 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 S. 80, Civil P. C., and in our opinion that is not within the scope of Art. 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 determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding. If the Court was of opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other directions of a like nature; and pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of Art. 226 does not permit such an action…..”
In view of the aforesaid law pronounced by the Supreme Court, it is not possible to grant relief of the nature sought pursuant to C.W.J.C. No. 8719 of 2012.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13393 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012
4 / 4
This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail such appropriate remedies as he may be advised against private respondent no. 4.
The writ application is dismissed.
P. Kumar/-
(Navin Sinha, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 permits granting interim relief in nature of temporary injunction when the court declines to adjudicate merits and directs filing a civil suit.
Whether directions given to circumvent Section 80 CPC fall within the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal RungtaRelied on¶6
A.I.R 1952 SC 12 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Kumar Dewedi
State Of Bihar
Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University
Registrar, Magadh University
Principal, Arbind Kumar Tiwary Shakya Muni College
Finance Officer, Shakya Muni College
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
