Dismissing a writ appeal challenging an interim order restraining a petitioner's posting. The bench held that the appeal is premature and mere notice as it would touch the merits of the main petition.
The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
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.
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
&
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. LAKSHMANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO. 848 of 2005
Dated 20th September, 2005
Between:
Mohd. Mukthar, son of Shaik Hyder, aged about 42 years, Occupation: Employee, resident of Chennur Village, Chennur Mandal, Adilabad District.
……Appellant
And:
1. The Managing Director, The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District and others.
…..Respondents.
JUDGMENT : (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant herein aggrieved by the order passed in W.V.M.P. No.1673 of 2004 in W.P.M.P.No.28511 of 2003 in W.P. No: 22762 of 2003, under which the learned single Judge allowed the same.
The appellant is the writ petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.
At the time of admitting the writ petition, an interim direction was issued in W.P.M.P.No:28511 of 2003 on 29.10.2003 to continue the petitioner as a Lamp Room Mazddor Category No.1 in I Incline, Chennuru. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed the Vacate Stay petition in W.V.M.P. No. 1673 of 2004 seeking to
vacate the interim orders dated 29-10-2003 passed in W.P.M.P.No.28511 of 2003. The learned single Judge having observed in similar matters, the interim direction was vacated, allowed the vacate stay petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred.
Heard the learned counsel, perused the order impugned and the entire material available on record.
We have gone through the order impugned. As a matter of fact, this appeal is nothing but an outcome of an interim order. Apart from that, the relief that is sought for in the main writ petition and the interlocutory application, is one and the same and therefore, the findings, if any are given at this stage of this proceedings, the same may touch the very merits of the main case resulting prejudice to the rights of either of the parties. In this background of the matter, We feel that the approach of the applicants, is a premature one and therefore, we do not see any merits in this writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Justice T. Meena Kumari
Date : 20th September, 2005.
Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy
Dvs/nn
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
&
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. LAKSHMANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO. 848 of 2005
(Judgment delivered by the Honourable
Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)
Dated 20th September, 2005
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ appeal arising solely from an interim order on posting should allow merits and result in prejudice to the main case.
Mohd. Mukthar
The Managing Director, The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd.
T. Meena Kumari
P. Lakshmana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
