Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 911 (PAT)

Sarbjit Rai v. State of Bihar

1997-12-17

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1997
Order 1. The case was admitted on 5th September, 1997 nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, this Court passed interim order staying operation of the impugned order dated 21st May, 1997. 2. An Interlocutory Application No.7330 of 1997 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 on 2nd December, 1997 after serving a copy of the same on the counsel for the petitioner on the same date (2nd December, 1997) with prayer to vacate the interim order of stay dated 5th September, 1997. 3. Today, when the case was taken up, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 referred the provision of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and submitted that no order having been passed by this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of filing of the Interlocutory Application, the interim order dated 5th September, 1997 should be treated to be vacated in terms with the aforesaid provision of the Constitution. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.2, Bihar Inter University Board is an authority in terms with Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is a wing of the State of Bihar. As the copy of the writ petition and Interlocutory Application was served earlier on the counsel for the State and the order dated 5th September, 1997 was passed in presence of the counsel for the State the said order should not be construed to be an ex-parte order. It is submitted that the provision of Article 226(3) is not applicable in the present case. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, according to me, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is mis-conceived. The respondent no.2, Bihar Inter University Board being an autonomous body, is a person by itself and admittedly the interim order dated 5th September, 1997 was passed without hearing the said respondent. It was for the said reason, notice was issued to the respondent no.2 and some other respondents on the same date. 6. Accordingly, I hold that the interim order of stay dated 5th September, 1997 stands vacated since 16th December, 1997 in the light of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. 7. IA No. 7330 of 1997 stands disposed of. 8. 6. Accordingly, I hold that the interim order of stay dated 5th September, 1997 stands vacated since 16th December, 1997 in the light of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. 7. IA No. 7330 of 1997 stands disposed of. 8. However, this order will not stand in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh Interlocutory Application for stay on which the court may pass appropriate order after hearing the parties. 9. This case should not be treated to be a tied up matter.