Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1974 DIGILAW 360 (ALL)

Jawahar Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Chaube

1974-09-04

H.N.SETH, SATISH CHANDRA

body1974
JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the validity of an order dated 28th June, 1974. whereby he was placed under suspension. A learned single Judge allowed an application for interim relief and by his order dated 13th August, 1974, staved the operation of the impugned order. This special appeal is directed against this order dated 13th August, 1974. 2. It is apparent that the writ petition is still pending. The order of stay granted by the learned single Judge does not, in our opinion, decide any of the rights of the parties which have to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition. In view of the decisions of this Court in University of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1972 All LJ 543; Vishwa Nath Tripathi v. Board of Revenue, 1972 All LJ 985; Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P., 1970 All LJ 735 : ( AIR 1971 All 39 ) and Gopal Behari Kapoor v. District Magistrate Etah, 1967 All LJ 990 this appeal is not competent. 3. Pandit Kunzru, appearing for the appellant, placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Standard Glass Beads Factory v. Shri Dhar, 1960 All LJ 387 = ( AIR 1960 All 692 ) (FB). This case has been considered by the various Division Benches mentioned above, and it has been held that the decision has no application to an order disposing of an application for interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel also relied upon Siaram v. Nathuram. 1968 All LJ 576. In this case it was held that certain interlocutory orders may amount to judgments, and that an interim order may amount to judgment if it decides substantial rights of the parties. In that case the impugned order permitted inspection of certain papers. It was held that the order was an, interlocutory one. It did not decide any of the rights of the parties and so the appeal was held to be incompetent. This decision does not, in our opinion, lend any assistance to the case of the appellant. 5. In our opinion the appeal is incompetent and is accordingly rejected. We make no order as of costs.