R. K. Manisana, J. — Facts leading to this appeal, briefly, are as under. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) filed Civil Rule No.2757 of 1992 against the Assam State Electricity Board (Board, for short) for quashing the order dated 23.7.92 placing him under suspension and the departmental proceeding initiated against him. Learned Single Judge made an interlocutory order on 30.4.93 directing the Board to revoke the suspension order. The Board made an application for vacation of the said interlocutory order but the learned Single Judge rejected the application on 25.5.93. Hence this appeal. 2. Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the interlocutory order made on 30.4.93 has lapsed as the main writ petition has been finally disposed of on 3.7.93 allowing the writ petition and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 3. The question which arises for consideration is whether the order has lapsed or merged in the final order. The doctrine of merger is not doctrine of rigid and universal application, and it cannot be said that with the passing of final order every interlocutory order lapses or merges in the final order. The question, whether an interlocutory order lapses with the passing of final order, or merges in the final order depends upon the nature of the orders. In the present case, as already stated, the Board was directed to revoke the order placing the writ petitioner under suspension. This order shall operate unless it is modified or merged in the final order. But the learned Single Judge has not given any finding about the legality or illegality of the suspension order, while disposing of the writ petition; that is to say, -the learned Single Judge has not dealt with this aspect of the matter. although the writ petitioner sought to quash the suspension order. Therefore, the impugned interlocutory order would continue to operate in law and, as such, the appeal is maintainable. 4. Coming to the case on hand, the appeal before us is against the exercise of discretion by learned Single Judge. In such an appeal, the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law.
In such an appeal, the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law. In appeal against the exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle [see Wander Ltd vs. Antox India Ltd, (1990) Supp SCC 727]. In the order dated 30.4.93, learned Single Judge observed, inter alia, that there is no material to disclose that, if the writ petitioner is taken back to the office he will tamper with the evidence and that the respondent has been under suspension for about a year. The appellant filed Misc Case No.255 of 1993 for vacation of the interim order. The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by the parties rejected the prayer for vacation of the interim order. Even we would like to come to a different decision it would not be a ground for interference with the impugned order for we do not find that the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion arbitrarily. In that view of the matter. appeal is dismissed. No costs.