AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Jain, A.C.J.
The question as to whether an interim and interlocutory orders passed in the Original Applications by the Tribunal below pending disposal of the
main Original Application itself by it and final determination of the case, could be the subject matter of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been referred to before us in this case.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this reference has arisen on the following facts:
On 9.11.19995, a Seniority List of Assistant / Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I was drawn by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. Challenging the
same, Tirunelveli Rural Welfare officers Association filed an appeal on 5.3.1996 to the Director of Rural Development. Thereafter, the Seniority
was set aside by order dated 2.8.1996. The District Collector revised the Seniority List vide order dated 18.10.1996 and consequently 22
persons were promoted. But after one year, an application in O.A. 8298 of 1997 was filed, praying to quash the Seniority List. The learned
Tribunal granted interim order on 21.10.1997, and thereafter, without considering the counter filed by the contesting party and the Government,
further extended it by order dated 25.3.1998. At this stage, challenging the inteim order granted on 25.3.1998 the matter has come up before a
Division bench of this Court in W.P. 6446 of 1998. The Division Bench referred the above question vide its order dated 15.6.1998 for an
authenticated pronouncement on the subject. The matter has come up before us today.
The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that High Court has power to entertain Writ Petitions against the final order of the Tribunal,
so also against the interim orders lex parte orders. Therefore, if any interim order lex parte order is passed and extended further, pending decision
of the main O.A., the same can be challenged before this Court, and it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the pendency
of the main O.A. To sustain the said contention the learned Counsel relied and referred to paragraphs 90 and 91 in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union
of India and others, ans also in State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, . The learned Senior Counsel further submits that this Court has got
wide power to weigh and correct the errors committed by the Tribunals, and can also see that the orders have not been passed without following
the procedure of law. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has been constituted under Article 323(A) of the Constitution of
India to adjudicate the disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of services of the persons appointed to the public
services. Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) deals with the establishment of Administrative
Tribunals and Benches, thereof. Section 5 deals with the composition of Tribunals and Benches thereof. Section 6 deals with the qualifications for
appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members. Section 14 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central
Administrative Tribunal and Section 15 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals. Section 19 deals with
the making out of applications before the Tribunals. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has got powers to grant interim
orders subject to the conditions imposed u/s 24 of the Act, which runs as under:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by
way of injunction or stay or in any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to, an application unless ? (a) copies of such
application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such application is made of
proposed to be made; and (b) opportunity is given to such party to be heard in the matter: provided that a Tribunal may dispense with the
requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) and make an interim order as an exceptional measure if it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that
it is necessary so to do for preventing any loss being caused to the applicant which cannot be adequately compensated in money but any such
interim order shall, if it is not sooner vacated, cease to have effect on the expiry of a period of fourteen days from the date on which it is made
unless the said requirements have been complied with before the expiry of that period and the Tribunal has continued the operation of the interim
order.
The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the facts of the given case the writ petition cannot be thrown as not maintainable, as the interim order
passed by the Tribunal has been extended without following the requirements u/s 24. Learned Counsel further submits that no exceptional
circumstance has been shown, nor the factual position has been ascertained by affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side, meaning
thereby, in the instant case the main relief itself has been granted, . on an interlocutory petition filed after one year, revising the Seniority List on
18.10.1996 and promoting 22 persons. He further submitted that the interim order of stay was extended. Thus, by this extended interim order the
main relief itself has been granted pending the original application, which will disturb the entire administration. He submitted that as on date there
was nothing to implement in the order and the prayer has become infructuous. Under these circumstances, certainly the order can be challenged
before the High Court and the High Court can entertain the writ petition pending the main application before the Tribunal.
The learned Additional Advocate General also supports the contention made by the learned Senior Counsel, and submits that passing of the
interlocutory ex parte orders granting the main relief has been deprecated by the Apex Court. In such a fact situation, this Court can entertain writ
petitions against the interim orders, as the Tribunal is granting the main relief at the initial stage itself, that too, even without verifying the factual
aspects and without affording an opportunity of being heard to other side.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. No doubt, the Tribunal has power to grant interim
orders, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. But at the same time, before granting the interim orders the Tribunal has
to satisfy itself regarding the factual aspects which warrant interim orders. It should also satisfy if such interim order is not granted whether it will
defeat the object. It is also to be seen whether the order impugned before it, has already been complied with or not and if nothing survives to
implement the order pending appeal, then what will be the effect of passing interim orders. Under such fact situation, passing of interim orders and
extending them till final disposal is nothing but creating complication and harassment to the parties concerned. It is also to be seen that while
granting ex parte interim orders of stay whether any procedure as required by law to be followed. It is further to be seen that the principles of
natural justice to be followed and no orders should be passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party. The Tribunal
though has power to pass any appropriate order, but being the highest forum for the redressal of the disputes pertaining to service matters, to our
mind, it will be appropriate for the Tribunal to note and verify the correctness of the existing facts of such case, since each case depends upon its
own facts and circumstances, and also follow the procedures as required under law, before passing such orders. Considering the question referred
to us, generally this Court, will not interfere with the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, unless there are some exceptional circumstances to
interfere with it, as the controversy has not been finally decided and the main application is pending decision. But in the fact situation as discussed
above, on our anxious consideration, we find that without there being any exceptional circumstances if an ex parte order granting stay or
continuation of stay till the final disposal of the main O.A. is passed pending the main application the interim order can be challenged before this
Court, as the High Court has power to weigh and correct the decisions rendered by the Tribunal under Article 226 and also exercising the power
of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of this and in overall consideration, we are of the firm view that under such
circumstances, writ petition filed against the interim order passed by the Tribunal is maintainable.
In the result the question referred to above is answered in the affirmative.