ABHIMANYOO RAM versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 21-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1 
ABHIMANYOO RAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7211 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 21, 2008 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Interim order: 
Selection -
To post. of Medical Officer -
Plea by c 
el/ant-writ petitioner for dismissal of writ petition as not 
ressed, after getting relief under interim order - High Court 
while dismissing the writ petition as not pressed, vacated the 
interim order and directed the State Authority to revoke 
selection of appellant, in case he had been selected/ D 
appointed because of participation in the process of selection 
... 
under the interim order - Direction challenged - Held: Courts 
should bestow caution while dismissing cases where interim 
relief had been granted, as not pressed or as withdrawn -
Any attempt by a litigant to retain benefit of interim order by E 
avoiding final adjudication, requires to be deprecated -
However, Court cannot assume, that in every case where a 
. request for withdrawal is made, the request is a dishonest 
attempt to avoid adjudication after securing benefit of interim 
order -
If Court fails to inform the petitioner about the 
F 
consequential directions proposed while dismissing the 
petition as not pressed, before making the order, there is 
every likelihood of the petitioner being denied the choic~ of 
proceeding with the case - On facts, appellant was not put 
on notice about the consequential direction to be issued on 
G 
acceptance of his request for withdrawal, nor given the option 
of continuing with the case, if he did not want dismissal of his 
~ 
petition with any added directions - To that extent there was · 
violation of a facet of principles of natural justice<- Hence, 
writ petition filed by appellant restored to file .. of High Court, 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
with permission to appellant to pursue it in accordance with 
law -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226 - Principle of 
natural justice - Requirement of fairness to litigant. 
Appellant was enrolled/registered with the Board of 
8 Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh. He got his name deleted 
from the State Register of Indian Medicine so as to enroll 
himself in another State but later again sought re-
enrolment in Uttar Pradesh which was granted wi 
prospective effect. Since appellant was denied inte 
for selection by the respondents to the post of M · 
C Officer, as his re-enrolment did not fulfil the eUgi 
requirements, he wanted his registration to J;>e restor"°. 
with retrospective effect from the date of original 
enrolment and filed a writ petition before the High Court 
seeking a direction to respondents to call him for 
D interview for the post of Medical Officer. In the said writ 
petition, an interim order was granted permitting appellant 
to appear in such interview. By making use of the said 
interim order, appellant secured an order from the Board 
of Indian Medicine, UP, restoring his enrolment from the 
E date of initial registration. Consequently, appellant was 
called for the interview· whereafter, he moved the Court 
for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed. 
The High Court while dismissing the writ petition as 
F not pressed, vacated its interim order and directed the 
Stat~ Authority to revoke selection of appellant, in case 
he had been selected/appointed because of participation 
in the process of selection under the interim order. 
· 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
G when he made a submission that he did not wish to 
press the writ petition, he bonafide thought that the Court 
would merely pass an order simplicitor dismissing the 
~
petition as not pressed. He contended that had he known 
that any conditions or directions detrimental to his 
H interest would be added to the order, while dismissing his 
ABHIMANYOO RAM v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
3 
petition as not pressed, he would not have sought A 
dismissal of the writ petition. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The assumption of the appellant that the 
High Court made ·unwanted or unwarranted observation 
B 
or issued any direction which was uncalled for, while 
dismissing his petition as not pressed, is not correct. 
~ 
[Para 4] [7-H] 
1.2. The High Court merely spelt out expressly, the c 
consequences of the dismissal of the writ petition. Such 
explicit directions have become necessary to check a 
raising trend among litigants to secure the relief as an 
interim measure, and then avoid adjudicatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.