Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1442 (BOM)

Yuvraj s/o Dadarao Kale v. State of Maharashtra

2007-10-04

M.G.GAIKWAD, N.V.DABHOLKAR

body2007
judgment Per: Dabholkar, J. 01. The appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court on 11.9.2007 in Writ Petition No.3849 of 2007. To describe in brief, learned Single Judge was pleased to issue rule. He, however, was not inclined to grant any interim relief. On the contrary, ad-interim relief granted earlier was vacated by him and interim relief was refused. Feeling aggrieved by refusal of interim relief, present appeal is filed by original writ petitioner. 02. Although Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not served, we have heard the appeal for final disposal, by mutual consent of learned Advocates for the parties, since we are not likely to pass any orders adverse to the interest of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, in either case i.e. even if we allow the L.P.A. or even if we dismiss the same. Suffice it to say that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were Village Development Officers (Gram Sevak) of Grampanchayat, Kaij, during relevant financial year 2006-07 (commencing from 1.4.2006) and they faced allegations at the hands of the appellant-original writ petitioner that failure on their part to execute the orders was the reason for not holding either gram panchayat meetings or gram sabha. 03. Factual matrix requisite for deciding present appeal can be stated as follows; . General elections of gram panchayat, Kaij, were held in the year 2003, sometime in March. First meeting of the gram panchayat was held on 29.4.2003, wherein present appellant was elected as Sarpanch. On 30.6.2007, Additional Collector, Ambajogai, passed an order, disqualifying the present appellant as Sarpanch for having incurred disqualification under Sections 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 ("The Act" for short). It appears from the record before the learned Single Judge that present respondent No.3 had complained against functioning of appellant as Sarpanch. It was alleged that the Sarpanch not only had failed to hold requisite number of meetings of gram panchayat and gram sabha, but had also indulged into misappropriation of grampanchayat funds. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, appointed a three-men committee consisting of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kaij, Extension Officer (Agriculture) and Education Officer. It was alleged that the Sarpanch not only had failed to hold requisite number of meetings of gram panchayat and gram sabha, but had also indulged into misappropriation of grampanchayat funds. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, appointed a three-men committee consisting of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kaij, Extension Officer (Agriculture) and Education Officer. (Although total composition of the committee is not properly mentioned in the report dated 17.5.2007 submitted by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kaij, to the Chief Executive Officer, Beed which is at R-1 in the Writ Petition, accompanied to the reply of Respondent No.3, the same is provided to us by the Advocate.) . A copy of roznama of the proceedings before the Additional Collector, Ambajogai, is filed in the Writ Petition at Exh. L (pages 53 to 55) and it is not clear from the roznama whether the Additional Collector initiated the disqualification proceedings on the basis of this report, or on the basis of complaint of Respondent No.3. However, we may only take cognizance of the fact that this report dated 17.5.2007 was submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. The proceedings are initiated by the Additional Collector, on 30.5.2007, when the applicant- Respondent No. 3 herein was present and the matter was adjourned to 6.6.2007 on which day, he seems to have filed a complaint, a copy of which is available in the record of Writ Petition at paperbook pages 40 to 43. All documents are referred to from the paperbook of the writ petition. . On 14.6.2007, present appellant appears to have filed written statement before the Additional Collector (Exh.J.). From Exhibit K of the writ petition, it is evident that Respondent No.2 in the proceedings before the Additional Collector, i.e. Shri M.V.Mane, Village Development Officer, Kaij, has filed his written statement on 30.5.2007 itself. The Collector passed order of disqualification of the appellant on 30.6.2007, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It appears that, by order dated 24.7.2007, learned Single Judge granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) for four weeks. Prayer clause (C) reads; ". The Collector passed order of disqualification of the appellant on 30.6.2007, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It appears that, by order dated 24.7.2007, learned Single Judge granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) for four weeks. Prayer clause (C) reads; ". Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the impugned order dated 30.6.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Ambajogai, may kindly be stayed." This ad-interim relief was continued by orders dated 14.8.2007, 21.8.2007 and 28.8.2007. It continued till 11.9.2007, when the writ petition was admitted, but ad-interim relief was vacated and further interim relief was refused. 04. The provisions relevant and which are relied upon by Advocate Shri Salunke for the appellant, may usefully be reproduced hereinbelow. . Relevant portion of Section 7 of the Act reads thus; "7. Meetings of Gram Sabha. There shall be held at least six meetings of the Gram Sabha[ every financial year on such date, at such [time and place, and in such manner as may be prescribed and if the Sarpanch, or in his absence, the Upa-Sarpanch, fails without sufficient cause, to hold any of such four meetings he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch, or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the members of the panchayat; and the Secretary of the panchayat shall also, if, prima facie, found responsible of any lapse in convening such meeting, be liable to be suspended, and for being proceeded against, for such other disciplinary action as provided under the relevant rules. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was such sufficient cause shall be final. . Provided that, the Sarpanch may, at any time of his own motion and shall, on requisition of the Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti, or Chief Executive Officer, call a meeting of the Gram Sabha within the period specified in the requisition; and, on the failure to do so, the Chief Executive Officer shall require the Block Development Officer to call the meeting within fifteen days from the date he is so required to do. The meeting shall, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (3), be presided over by him or any officer authorised by the Block Development Officer, in that behalf. . The meeting shall, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (3), be presided over by him or any officer authorised by the Block Development Officer, in that behalf. . Provided further that, a period of not more than three months shall be allowed to elapse between the two meetings of the Gram Sabha. . Provided also that, if the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, fails to call any such meeting within the specified period, the Secretary shall call the meeting and it shall be presumed that, such meeting has been called with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch. ........................................ ........................................" Section 36 of the Act reads as follows; "36. Time and Place of sitting of panchayat and procedure at meetings. The time and place of sitting, and the procedure at a meeting, of the panchayat shall be such as may be prescribed. . Provided that, if the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch, fails without sufficient cause, to convene the meeting of the Panchayat in any financial year according to the rules prescribed in that behalf, he shall be disqualified for continuing as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch or for being chosen as such for the remainder of the term of office of the members of the panchayat. The decision of the Collector on the question whether or not there was sufficient cause shall be final. For the purpose of complete reading of Section 36, further reference to the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 ("The Rules" in short), becomes inevitable. Rule 3 reads thus; ". 3(1). Every panchayat shall meet at least once in every month. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the person presiding at such ordinary meeting may, at the end of such meeting, in consultation with the majority of the members present, announce the date of the next ordinary meeting. Provided that the Sarpanch, or in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch, may having regard to the exigencies of the situation, fix another date of such next ordinary meeting. (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" Rule 6(1) relating to issuance of notice of meeting reads; ". A notice stating the date, time and place of every meeting of the panchayat and of the business to be transacted thereat, shall be placed on the notice-board at the office of the panchayat. (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" Rule 6(1) relating to issuance of notice of meeting reads; ". A notice stating the date, time and place of every meeting of the panchayat and of the business to be transacted thereat, shall be placed on the notice-board at the office of the panchayat. An announcement of the date of every meeting shall also be made by beat of drum in the village, and if there are more than one village in each of such villages, not later than the day immediately following the day on which the notice had been affixed as aforesaid." (2)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rule 9 relating to quorum of meeting reads as under: "9(1).The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the panchayat shall be one-half of the total number of members of the panchayat including the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch." Explanation: If the number of members of the panchayat is odd, in calculating half the number for the purposes of quorum, fraction of a member shall be counted as one e.g. if the number of members is seven, the quorum shall be four, if the number is nine, the quorum shall be five and so on." 05. In fact, it is needless to go into aspect of number of meetings of gram panchayat and gram sabhas held during the financial year 2006-07, by the appellant as Sarpanch, or the issue whether some of the gram panchayat meetings were invalid as stated in the report of the three-member committee dated 17.5.2007. But, we may only point that as far as observation by the committee that the gram panchayat meetings held on 10.7.2006, 14.8.2006, 29.9.2006 and 13.10.2006, were invalid meetings for want of quorum, is concerned, such observation by the three-member committee is patently wrong, if we read rule 9(1) quoted hereinabove. For these four meetings, there was presence of 11, 12, 12 and 12 members out of 17. In second paragraph of this report, it is said that only two gram sabhas were held on 15.8.2006 and 2.10.2006 and those were invalid for want of quorum. We are, however, not enlightened about the provisions regarding what is the quorum for gram sabha. . Be that as it may. In second paragraph of this report, it is said that only two gram sabhas were held on 15.8.2006 and 2.10.2006 and those were invalid for want of quorum. We are, however, not enlightened about the provisions regarding what is the quorum for gram sabha. . Be that as it may. It is not the contention of Advocate Shri Salunke that his client had held requisite number of gram sabha or gram panchayat meetings and that thereby no disqualification is incurred. It is submitted that failure to hold either gram panchayat meetings or gram sabhas was for reasons beyond control of the appellant, who had taken all possible steps for holding meeting and this should have been considered as "sufficient cause" for the failure. In fact, it is submitted by Advocate Shri Salunke that the learned Additional Collector has not at all addressed himself to this aspect which is essential ingredient of both the provisions i.e. Sections 7 and 36 of the Act and without satisfaction on this aspect that the failure of the Sarpanch was without sufficient cause for not holding requisite number of gram sabha and gram panchayat meeting, he should not have been disqualified. . According to Advocate Shri Bondar, representing the complainant-Respondent No.3 herein who had practically initiated disqualification proceedings by his complaint, has submitted that the affidavits of two gramsevaks were filed which sufficiently indicate that the Sarpanch was the cause for not holding the gram panchayat meetings, as also gram sabhas. This is because, both the Village Development Officers (Gramsevaks) have stated in their affidavits to have approached the Sarpanch for next date of the meeting and yet, he had not instructed them appropriately. . Advocate Shri Bondar has also tried to place reliance upon Section 7(11) of the Act and plead that if the Gramsevaks (V.D.Os.) were not obedient, the Sarpanch could have taken assistance of the authorities referred to in sub-section (11) of Section 7, for issuing notice of either gram panchayat meeting or gram sabha. In one sentence, it is the submission of Advocate Shri Bondar that the Sarpanch has not established "sufficient cause" by which he can save himself from disqualification incurred by virtue of non compliance of Sections 7 and 36 of the Act. 06. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge, or rather relevant portion may be quoted here for ready reference. ". 06. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge, or rather relevant portion may be quoted here for ready reference. ". In short, defenceof the petitioner is in relation to phrase "sufficient cause for not holding six gram-sabhas during financial year 2006-2007." 3. In this view of the matter, case for admission has been made out. However, looking to the material on record, in my view, protection granted by this Court needs to be vacated. 4. Rule, Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No interim relief. Respective counsel for respondents waive Rule notice. " . It is evident that the learned Single Judge was inclined to protect the petitioner from the adverse effect of the impugned order passed by the Collector on 30.6.2007 till this date, nearly for a period of two months from 24.7.2007 to 11.9.2007, when the matter could not be considered on merits for admission. On 11.9.2007, learned Single Judge was convinced that the appellant - writ petitioner has an arguable case and, therefore, was pleased to issue rule. However, at the same time, the learned Single Judge was not inclined to continue ad-interim relief till disposal of the writ petition. We are unable to read any reasons in the order quoted hereinabove as to why learned Single Judge was so disinclined to continue interim protection. Ordinarily, when this court issues rule in a matter, it is believed that the court is satisfied about prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and ordinarily, interim relief, if prayed, should follow. In case the court is not inclined to grant interim relief, in spite of issuing rule, thereby indicating its’ inclination to believe that there is an arguable point in favour of the petitioner, the relief ought to be refused for strong and exceptional reasons. . In the matterathands,the appellant-petitioner, by the impugned order, is disqualified from being Sarpanch and also from being re-elected as Sarpanch for remainder term. In case, the interim relief is refused and the election for new Sarpanch goes ahead, that would land the grampanchayat into irreversible position and success of the appellant herein, if any, in the writ petition, will be fruitless. In one sentence, the writ petition would become infructuous if election for Sarpanch is held. In case, the interim relief is refused and the election for new Sarpanch goes ahead, that would land the grampanchayat into irreversible position and success of the appellant herein, if any, in the writ petition, will be fruitless. In one sentence, the writ petition would become infructuous if election for Sarpanch is held. Even on considering these aspects, we are unable to appreciate why learned Single Judge was not inclined to grant any interim relief, if not in terms of prayer clause (C), may be in a modified form, by keeping the possibility of reinstatement of the appellant as Sarpanch, in case of his success in the writ petition, open by interim protection. 07. No doubt, Advocate Shri Bondar or learned A.G.P. Shri Kishor Patil have not advanced any submission on the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal and we are aware that the appeal is against interim order. . However, on this aspect, we may usefully refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. versus Chunilal Nanda, AIR 2006, S.C. 2190, as contained in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 which are put in a capsule form in headnote B. ". Interim orders/ interlocutory orders passed during pendency of the case for one reason or the other of the following categories. (i). Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case, (ii) orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case; (iii). Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case; (iv). Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment; (v). Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party but which do not finally determine the rights/obligations of the parties. ......................................... ........................................ Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) to (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals provided under Letters Patent." . ......................................... ........................................ Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) to (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals provided under Letters Patent." . For the reasons discussed by us in paragraph above, it is evident that, refusal of any interim protection finally decides the issue of interim protection and would result into materially and directly affecting the final decision in the main case. The writ petition would become infructuous and may remain only of academic interest. Viewed thus, we believe the impugned order to be falling in category (ii) amongst five categories referred in the reported judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal would, therefore, be maintainable. Otherwise also, Writ Petition is titled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and once a party has requested the court to exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226, it may not be possible for the court to say that it is a writ petition falling only under Article 227. (Jagdish Balwant Abhyankar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 (1) Mh.L.J. 958 ). 08. Coming back to the criticism against the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, it is evident that he has partly accepted the version of Respondent No.2 before him i.e. the Village Development Officer Shri M.V. Mane, to the effect that he had approached the Sarpanch and even suggested to hold the meeting under the chairmanship of Upa-Sarpanch, in case Sarpanch has no time, but the Sarpanch had expressed his opposition to such a procedure to be followed. We shall come to the veracity of this version of the V.D.O. Shri Mane, little later. Only in the concluding paragraph, learned Additional Collector, if at all; has referred to the aspect of "sufficient cause" and dismissed the same by couple of sentences. These reasons can be read by free translation in English as under; ". About these meetings, which are not held, the Respondent (Sarpanch) states that he had given written instructions to Respondent No. 2 (V.D.O.) but Respondent No. 2 has contradicted this version. This appears to be an attitude of avoiding the responsibility. As per the Gram Panchayat Act, it is the responsibility of Sarpanch to hold Gram Sabhas and monthly meetings of the Gram Panchayat. This appears to be an attitude of avoiding the responsibility. As per the Gram Panchayat Act, it is the responsibility of Sarpanch to hold Gram Sabhas and monthly meetings of the Gram Panchayat. Hence, contentions of the Respondent that he had given instructions to the V.D.O. or praying to stay proceedings till decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2610 of 2007 (filed by present Respondent No.3) are only time consuming strategy." . It must be said that the reasons put forth by the appellant-Sarpanch for his inability to hold the meetings, are not at all dealt with by the learned Collector. We may only enlist these details to which our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the applicant. It can be presumed that there were no complaints about not holding meetings during the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The problem cropped up only in financial year 2006-07. It is the brave allegation of the appellant that Upa-Sarpanch of his group has defected to the party of the Minister from the local constituency. and his body, which was elected with thumping and absolute majority, is tried to be dethroned from the Gram Panchayat office. Even as per the report of the three-men committee, at least two gram sabhas and six monthly meetings of the gram panchayat were held. The reasons for not holding other meetings are tried to be justified, by referring to following documents. . At Exh. A to writ petition, is a copy of communication dated 16.5.2006. The appellant had directed Shri V.S. Kamble, the then Gram Sevak to convene May 2006 gram panchayat meeting, by indicating five subjects, on 31.5.2006. By communication dated 10.11.2006 (Exh. B, para 10), he had directed the then V.D.O. Shri M.V. Mane to convene monthly meeting for November 2006 at the end of the month, by getting subject list approved from him. Exhibit D is a communication dated 10.1.2007 again addressed to the then Village Development Officer Shri M.V. Mane, directing him to convene a meeting of the gram panchayat, on 26.1.2007. At Exh. E, is a communication dated 29.1.2007, by appellant-Sarpanch to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kaij, with a copy to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed and others, wherein he has complained against the then V.D.Os. Shri V.M.Kamble and Shri M.V. Mane, as also Superintendent Shri G.B.Kadam. At Exh. E, is a communication dated 29.1.2007, by appellant-Sarpanch to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kaij, with a copy to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed and others, wherein he has complained against the then V.D.Os. Shri V.M.Kamble and Shri M.V. Mane, as also Superintendent Shri G.B.Kadam. In item No. 10 amongst grounds against Shri Kamble and item No. 5 amongst grounds against Shri Mane, it is complained that in spite of giving instructions as Sarpanch for convening the meeting, the V.D.Os. did not issue notice for convening meeting. On 11.4.2007, appellant addressed another communication (Exh. F) to the B.D.O, Panchayat Samiti, Kaij, wherein he also complained about Gram Panchayat administration not functioning smoothly, because the monthly meetings of the Gram Panchayat Samiti are not convened, in spite of oral and written instructions. In this communication, by concluding paragraph, he has requested the B.D.P. to convene such meeting through the office of B.D.O. Exhibit G dated 31.5.2007 is a complaint by the appellant, which is also supported by ten members of the gram panchayat, addressed to the Collector, Beed. . As on today, since the writ petition is pending, we are not inclined to record a finding whether the reasons are sufficient or not. Suffice it to say that the learned Single Judge was justified in issuing rule, as the disqualification cannot be incurred merely because of not holding meetings, but such inactions must be without any sufficient reasons The appellant is trying to make out a case of sufficient reasons and when the learned Single Judge was pleased to issue rule, we believe that he was satisfied, prima facie’ of availability of some reasons required to be considered on merits. 09. Regarding contentions about two Village Development Officers, which was relied upon by Advocate Shri Bondar for Respondent No. 3, that the appellant-Sarpanch resisted the suggestion of the V.D.Os. 09. Regarding contentions about two Village Development Officers, which was relied upon by Advocate Shri Bondar for Respondent No. 3, that the appellant-Sarpanch resisted the suggestion of the V.D.Os. to convene meeting under the chairmanship of Upa-Sarpanch, if Sarpanch had no time, eventually in the written statement on oath by Village Development Officer Shri M.V.Mane dated 30.5.2007, he has stated; ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- i.e. "Whenever it was suggested that, in case Sarpanch does not have time, Gram Sabha and meeting of Gram Panchayat may be held under the chairmanship of Deputy Sarpanch, the Sarpanch resisted such suggestion and saying that since I am not on leave for a single day, you will not be able to follow such a course. " . Second half clearly indicates reasons for resistance. The Sarpanch had indicated his availability for all the days and, therefore, he did not accede to the suggestion of the V.D.O., of holding meeting under the chairmanship of Deputy Sarpanch. We have made a bold statement that the averment by the V.D.O. to this effect is doubtful and we are justified in saying so, in view of proviso to Section 7, which we have already reproduced herein and in case the Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch fails to call any meeting or gram sabha within specified period, a responsibility is fixed on the Secretary to call such meeting and there is a presumption that such a meeting has been called with the concurrence of the Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch. If this proviso is taken into consideration, it was not necessary for the Secretary to suggest about chairmanship of Upa Sarapnch and he could have invited meeting on his own. The Sarpanch could have taken assistance of any government or semi government or panchayat employee, as suggested in sub-section (11) of Section 7 of the Act, was the submission advanced by Advocate Shri Bondar. We are afraid, that the V.D.O. is the Secretary of the Committee. Text of sub-section (11) itself suggests that assistance of the government or semi government employees, can be taken for maintaining the proceedings of the meeting. The meeting has to be held by a notice issued by the Secretary and we do not find any reason why the Secretary could not have convened meeting, more so when the Sarpanch was insisting for the same. . The meeting has to be held by a notice issued by the Secretary and we do not find any reason why the Secretary could not have convened meeting, more so when the Sarpanch was insisting for the same. . In fact, our attention is also drawn to the fact that both these V.D.Os. were ultimately suspended by order dated 30.5.2007 and the reasons for suspension also include their failure to call monthly gram panchayat meetings and gram sabhas. . Although as per rule 3 (1) of the Rules, the date of the next meeting can be pronounced in the meeting under progress, rule 6 mandates a notice stating date, time and place of the meeting and business to be transacted thereat, to be placed on the notice-board at the office of the panchayat. 10. For all these reasons, we feel that the learned Single Judge was justified in issuing rule by feeling that there is a prima facie case in favour of present appellant-original writ petitioner and at the same time, he would have been justified in continuing interim relief as was granted in terms of prayer clause (C). We find no justification in the impugned order for refusal of interim order. 11. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is modified. It is quashed to the extent it refuses interim relief and the contents to that effect in the impugned order shall be replaced by restoring interim relief, as was ordered by order dated 24.7.2007.