Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1986 DIGILAW 355 (SC)

State of A. P. v. T. Nandagopal

1986-09-08

A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY

body1986
(1) NORMALLY, this court does not interfere with interlocutory orders of this nature except, under very exceptional circumstances. In the tacts and circumstances of the case, mere is no reason for us to depart from this well settled practice. Obviously, the Hign court could not have prejudged the whole issue involved in the writ petition which is still to be neard on merits,We, therefore, made the impugned order subject to the result of the writ petition and without prejudice to me rignts and contentions of the parties. Learned counsel for the State government seeks two weeks time to implement me impugned order of me High court. We grant two weeks time to me State government to implement the direction made by the High court as prayed for. (2) WE hope and trust that the High court will endeavour to dispose of the writ petition on merits, as expeditiously as possible; and, in any event, not later than four weeks from today. (3) SPECIAL leave petition is accordingly disposed of. COURT Master.