AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 217 wordsDilip Gupta, J.
Respondent No.4appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 3rd March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10223 of 2009, has preferred this Appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.
Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the appellant. Standing Counsel representing the State and Mr. Uma Kant appears on behalf of respondent No. 5.
By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has by interim order, stayed the operation of the order dated 5th February, 2009 and directed for listing of the matter in the week commencing 13th April, 2009. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an interlocutory order in an Special Appeal unless an exceptional case is made out.
We are of the opinion that the case in hand is not one of those exceptional cases in which interference, at this stage is called for in this appeal.
However, in view of the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition, we deem it expedient that the learned Judge in seisin of the writ petition, makes endevour to dispose of the writ application expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date the order is brought to the notice of the Court.
Appeal stands dismissed with the observations aforesaid.