# (2009) 3 ILRA 1128

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 1128
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-12-21
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1967 of 2009
- **Bench:** C.K. Prasad, C.J. Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2009-3-ilra-1128-41399
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and Procedure-interim order without
disclosing
any
reason-not
soundful
practice-although recording exhaustive
reason not required but it must appear in
face of order itself-interim order passed
by Single Judge set-a side-with liberty to
pass fresh interim order if required.

Held: Para 12 & 13

In view of the decisions of this Court,
referred to above, there is no escape
from the conclusion that while passing
an interim order, the Court is required to
indicate the reason, which weighed with
it while granting the interim relief, the
reason may not be exhaustive and may
be basic or short, but it must appear in
the face of the order.

When tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
pronouncements of this Court, we find
that the learned Single Judge while
passing the interim order, as reproduced
above, has not recorded any reason,
whatsoever, at all.

## Text

1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
respondent in Writ Petition No. 1157 of
1990 that in view of the order of
regularisation passed in his favour the
writ petition be consigned to records.
Taking notice of the said facts, this Court
dismissed the writ petition as infructuous
on 28.09.2004. A copy of the said order
has been brought on record through the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 5. It is further evident that
the respondent no. 5 stood regularised and
the dismissal of the writ petition as
infructuous was coupled by noticing the
fact that the services had been regularised.

20. In this view of the matter, the
question
of
regularisation
of
the
respondent no. 5 stood foreclosed. Thus
there was no occasion to review the
regularisation of the respondent no. 5.
However, the order of the Joint Director
of Education in relation to the respondent
no. 5 that the said regularisation would
take effect under Section 33-B of the Act
appears to be justified as he could not
have
been
given
the
benefit
of
regularisation
under
Section
33-A.
However no final opinion is expressed
thereon as the regularisation of the
respondent no. 5 is still in jeopardy in
Special Appeal No. 1603 of 2004, which
is stated to be pending at the instance of
one Shri R.N. Sharma.

21. So far as, the respondent no. 6 is
concerned, it is evident from the records
that he was regularised w.e.f. 29.05.1992.
In view of this, the regularisation of the
respondent also cannot be now reopened
after 17 years at the behest of the
petitioner, who has been given the benefit
of regularisation under the order dated
21.12.1994.

22. The order dated 6th October,
2009 however incorrectly records the
reason for placing the petitioner to be
junior namely that the regularisation order
has been cancelled. To that extent the
order dated 06.10.2009 is erroneous.

23. Accordingly, the order dated
06.10.2009 is set aside to the aforesaid
extent and the Regional Joint Director of
Education shall pass orders in the light of
the observations made hereinabove within
a period of 6 weeks from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order before the said respondent and after
perusing the respective contentions of the
parties.

24. The writ petition is allowed
subject
to
the
directions
contained
hereinabove.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE C.K. PRASAD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 1967 of 2009

Committee of Management, Rashtreey
Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Rudauli,
Auraiya and another

...Appellants
Versus
Sri Ram Babu Dwivedi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shri H.R. Mishra
Sri Uma Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'
Sri D.P. Mishra
C.S.C.
3 All] C/M, Rashtreey Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalay & anr.V. Sri R.B. Dwivedi and ors. 1129
Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and Procedure-interim order without
disclosing
any
reason-not
soundful
practice-although recording exhaustive
reason not required but it must appear in
face of order itself-interim order passed
by Single Judge set-a side-with liberty to
pass fresh interim order if required.

Held: Para 12 & 13

In view of the decisions of this Court,
referred to above, there is no escape
from the conclusion that while passing
an interim order, the Court is required to
indicate the reason, which weighed with
it while granting the interim relief, the
reason may not be exhaustive and may
be basic or short, but it must appear in
the face of the order.

When tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
pronouncements of this Court, we find
that the learned Single Judge while
passing the interim order, as reproduced
above, has not recorded any reason,
whatsoever, at all.

(Delivered by Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.)

1. Respondents 3 and 4 - appellants,
aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2009
passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 57084 of 2009,
have preferred this appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952.

2. The order impugned is interim in
nature. It reads as follows:-

"Till next date of listing the effect
and operation of the impugned order
dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Deputy
Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chits),
Kanpur Region, Kanpur shall remain
stayed and the consequential elections
held on 3.9.2009 shall be kept in
abeyance."
3. Mr.
H.R. Mishra, Senior
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
appellants, submits that in view of the
inter se finding between the parties in
Special Appeal No. 1486 of 2008, the writ
petition itself was not maintainable and,
hence, the learned Single Judge ought not
to have passed any order.

4. However, Mr. M.D. Singh
'Shekhar', appearing on behalf of writ
petitioners, respondents 1 to 3 herein,
submits
that
the
writ
petition
is
maintainable and the learned Single Judge
did not err in passing the interim order.

5. Expression of any opinion by us
at this stage shall prejudice either party
and, therefore, we are not inclined to go
into the submissions advanced by the
counsel for the parties in this regard.

6. Mr. Mishra, then, submits that the
learned Single Judge, while passing the
impugned order, has not indicated any
reason.

7. Mr. Shekhar, in answer thereto,
submits that the reasons do exist, but mere
its non-mentioning in the impugned order
shall not vitiate the same.

8. Ordinarily, this Court in special
appeal does not interfere with an interim
order, but it is not a rule of law.

9. True it is that no detailed reason is
required to be given while granting
interim relief. However, what weighs with
the learned Judge while granting the
interim
relief
needs
to
be
briefly
indicated. A Division Bench of this Court
had the occasion to consider this question
in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.
Rama Dental College & Anr., 2006 (10)
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
ADJ 7, in which it has been held as
follows:-

"2. We find that the impugned order
is a very short one, and does not contain
any reasons. It is essential that some
reasons, however basic or however short,
be given even while passing an interim
order. This prevents the order from being
criticised as arbitrary, and also gives the
Court of appeal essential information as to
what was uppermost in the mind of the
first Court in the first place. An order
becomes legally infirm, it is supposed to
contain reasons and yet it does not. On the
basis of this legal infirmity, the impugned
order under appeal is set aside. Although
we have heard parties at some length, yet
we have not entered into the merits of the
case in any final way, and are not in a
position to make any pronouncement in
that regard."

10. Yet, another decision in which
this question fell for consideration is the
Division Bench decision of this Court in
the case of Committee of Management
Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
& Ors., 2007 (3) ADJ 119, in which on a
review of earlier decision on the issue, it
was held as follows:-

"5. We, therefore, in the absence of
any reason in the order for grant of such
interim relief are not inclined to accept
the contention of Sri I.R. Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner-respondents.
Since the order under appeal does not
contain any reason whatsoever, in view of
the aforesaid exposition of law the order
under appeal cannot sustain and therefore,
set aside. However, since the matter is
fixed on 8.1.2007 i.e. Monday next before
the Hon'ble Single Judge, we hope that
the Hon'ble Single Judge will hear the
application for interim relief again and
thereafter pass the order, or the Hon'ble
Single Judge may decide the writ petition
itself on merit subject to other business of
the Court. With the above observations
this special appeal stands disposed of."

11. Further, this question pointedly
came up for consideration before a
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Kuldeep Kumar Tripathi Vs. Rang
Bahadur & Ors., (2008) 2 UPLBEC 1971,
in which it has been held as follows:-

"22. A perusal of the impugned order
indicates that in passing the order staying
the effect of the motion no reason was
recorded by the learned Single Judge.
Learned Counsel for the respondents
submitted that unless the motion was not
signed by more than half of the members,
no meeting could have been convened by
the District Magistrate. Learned Single
Judge while passing order has not
recorded any reason for such grant. This
Court as well as the Apex Court time and
again has laid down that in granting an
interim order reasons are necessary to be
recorded [See 2006 (10) ADJ 7, Union of
Vs. Rama Dental College.]"

12. In view of the decisions of this
Court, referred to above, there is no
escape from the conclusion that while
passing an interim order, the Court is
required to indicate the reason, which
weighed with it while granting the interim
relief, the reason may not be exhaustive
and may be basic or short, but it must
appear in the face of the order.

13. When tested on the anvil of the
aforesaid pronouncements of this Court,
we find that the learned Single Judge
while passing the interim order, as
3 All] Smt. Reena Devi V. State of U.P. and others
1131
reproduced above, has not recorded any
reason, whatsoever, at all.

14. In that view of the matter, we are
left with no option than to set aside the
order impugned.

15. Accordingly, we set aside the
impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge.

16. As we have set aside the
impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge on the aforesaid ground
alone, nothing shall prevent the learned
Judge from passing fresh order bearing in
mind the observations aforesaid.

17. The petition shall be listed on
4th January, 2010 as directed by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned
order.

18. In the result, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge is set aside
with the observation aforesaid.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56761 of 2008

Smt. Reena Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.R. Khan
Sri Rajendra Prasad
Sri V.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anuj Kumar
Sri Ramesh Kumar
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article
226Cancellation of Appointment-petitioner
was appointed as Shiksha Mitra-on long
term observe of R-6-Gaon Sabha passed
resolution in favour of petitioner she
continually worked and renewal of her
tenure
also
given
by
order
dated
22.7.2008-by
impugned
order
dated
15.10.2008
the
B.S.A.
reviewed
its
earlier
order
behind
the
back
of
petitioner-held-the appointment of R-6
was confined for 11 month only-No
provision of long period of leave-B.S.A.
acted beyond its jurisdiction apart from
order
passed
in
utter
violation
of
principle
of
Natural
Justice-not
sustainable.

Held: Para 6

It
is,
therefore,
evident
that
the
respondent no.6 was absent for more
than a year and the entire tenure of a
Shiksha Mitra in a session is 11 months.
Accordingly, the order passed by the
Basic Education Officer on 22nd July,
2008 was in accordance with the said
government order. It did not require any
review at his hand. The order dated
15.10.2008 proceeds on an erroneous
assumption and is untenable in the eyes
of law. Even otherwise also it has been
passed in violation of principles of
natural justice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. The petitioner claims that she was
selected and appointed as Shiksha Mitra
against the post which had fallen vacant
on account of the absence of Smt. Gyanti
Devi, respondent no.6. The petitioner
contends that since Smt. Gyanti Devi was
absent for more than a year, the Village
Education Committee had passed a