Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs Chandrashekhar Belchandan

Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

This writ appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.9339 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge directed that the effect and opeartion of the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing.

The order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2023 reads as follows:

“Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Mateen Siddiqui and Ms Diksha Gouraha, counsel for respondents.

Heard.

Issue notice to respondents.

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents. PF is not required to be paid.

Also heard on IA-01 of 2022, application for grant of interim relief.

Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner submits that petitioner was suspended vide order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P1) with mala fide intention. Initially petitioner filed WPS- 5439 of 2017 in which interim order was passed on 13.10.2017 protecting place of posting of petitioner but respondents tried to disturb the place of posting of petitioner. Aggrieved by action on the part of respondents, petitioner was forced to file Contempt Case-796of 2020 which came up for hearing on 27.10.2020. This Court considering the arbitrary act on the part of respondents, directed petitioner to continue as Executive Engineer in his earlier place of posting. Respondents thereafter, had withdrawn the order of change of place of posting of petitioner based upon which, Contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.12.2021. Thereafter, respondents passed an order of withdrawing, drawing and disbursement power of petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2022. Petitioner again challenged that order by filing Contempt petition-995 of 2022. After issuance of notice the said order was also withdrawn and thereafter, impugned order came to be passed. He contended that amount of Rs.57,229/- as said to have been withdrawn unauthorisedly by petitioner in the order impugned is only proposed by petitioner vide Annexure R-1/1 and thereafter, said amount was sanctioned by the authority on 05.08.2022. After sanction of amount by competent authority, petitioner withdrawn the said amount on 08.08.2022 towards travelling to Delhi for his medical category review in Military hospital. Subsequently, respondents passed resolution stating that petitioner is not entitled for Travelling Allowance for medical category review. He also referred to Page-12 of reply submitted by respondents stating that decision was taken much after withdrawal of amount ie on 24.08.2022. He submits that from the documents available on record, it is prima facie appearing that petitioner is being harassed by passing one or the other order. The intent of respondent is only to oust petitioner from the post of Executive Engineer, without any reason or ground. Impugned order in facts of the case, is an order passed with mala fide intention, hence petition be considered and interim protection be granted.

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondents opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that R-1/1 is a document prepared by petitioner himself and forwarded. In the document R1/1, there is no specific mention of withdrawal of amount of Rs.57,229/-, and therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that amount is sanctioned is not correct. He also submits that petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy available with him challenging order of suspension in appeal before the Board. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.

Heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, also perused documents placed on record.

Considering facts and events from 2017 as narrated by petitioner based on documents available on record, contents of order, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that effect and operation of order dated 08.12.2022 shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing.

List this case on 6th February, 2023 for further hearing.

In the meantime, petitioner may file rejoinder to reply submitted by respondents.”

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, for short, the Act of 2006, which specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order.

Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006) reads as follows:

“2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.-(1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court.

Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

A perusal of the above would go to show that no appeal shall lie before the Division Bench against an interlocutory order.

In that view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the learned Single Judge is requested to decided the matter expeditiously.