Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 155 (UTT)

Arvind Kumar Bajpai v. Collector, Nainital

2020-02-28

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) - This intra-Court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules , is preferred against the proceedings of the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3886 of 2019, dated 09.01.2020. 2. The appellant herein filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3886 of 2019 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities not to pursue with the recovery citation dated 27.09.2019 issued against the appellant-writ petitioner in his individual capacity. By way of interim relief, the appellant-writ petitioner sought a direction to stay the effect and operation of the recovery citation dated 27.09.2019, issued by the second respondent, during the pendency of the Writ Petition. 3. In his proceedings, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3886 of 2019 dated 09.01.2020, the learned Single Judge has recorded that the appellant-writ petitioners case was that he was only a representative of the company which was 'Mehar Cement'; it was his case that the company was liable to pay the dues, and no steps could be taken against him, in his individual capacity to recover the amount; he had, however, failed to make the company a party to the Writ Petition; only after it was pointed out, was the company made a party to the Writ Petition; and the Court found no ground to interfere by way of interim relief at that stage. While directing notice to be issued to the newly impleaded respondents, and for a counter-affidavit to be filed within three weeks, the learned Single Judge had directed that the case be listed after four weeks in the daily list. The four weeks period, stipulated by the learned Single Judge, expired on 07.02.2020. 4. An intra-Court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, would lie to a Division Bench only from a judgment. By the proceedings under challenge herein, the learned Single Judge has merely deferred hearing, of both the Writ Petition and the Interlocutory Application, by a period of four weeks. It is not as if the Interlocutory Application, filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Deferring hearing of the Writ Petition, to enable the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, would not constitute a judgment against which alone an intra-Court appeal would lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It is not as if the Interlocutory Application, filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Deferring hearing of the Writ Petition, to enable the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, would not constitute a judgment against which alone an intra-Court appeal would lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. The present appeal, preferred against proceedings whereby hearing of the Writ Petition was deferred by four weeks, is not maintainable. 5. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of maintainability. No costs. 6. Suffice it to observe that dismissal of this Special Appeal shall not disable the appellant-writ petitioner from requesting the learned Single Judge to take up the Interlocutory Application, for grant of interim relief, at an early date since the four week period, by which hearing of the Writ Petition was deferred, has already expired.