STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. versus DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 11-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
v. 
DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL 
SEPTEMBER 11. 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. JJ.) 
( 
Practice and Procedure-Interim order-Respondent-employee filed writ 
petition challenging his discharge from service-Pending disposal of the 
c 
petition, interim order passed directing reinstatement of Respondent-Writ 
petition finally dismissed-Held: The interim order came to an end with final 
disposal of the petition-Mereiy because pursuant to the interim order 
reinstatement had been done, the High Court could not have subsequently 
granted relief to Respondent by allowing his appeal-Matter remitted back 
to High Court for fresh consideration on merits. 
D 
Respondent filed writ petition questioning his discharge from service. 
Pending disposal of the petition, Single Judge of High Court passed interim 
order in favour of Respondent directing his reinstatement. But finally the 
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition clearly indicating that the interim 
reliefs stood vacated because of the same. Review application against the said 
E final order was dismissed. Respondent filed Letters Patent·Appeal which the 
High Court allowed keeping in view the interim order passed earlier, holding 
that thereby the Single Judge of High Court had allowed the writ petition. 
Hence the present appeal. 
• 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is well settled that an order granted pending disposal of the 
r 
writ petition/suit or other proceedings, comes to an end with the disposal of 
the substantive proceedings and that it is the duty of the Court in such a case 
to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim 
G orders of the Court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the 
Court prejudicing the party for no fault of his and Wlluld also mean rewarding 
-
the writ petitioner inspite of his failure. Any such unjust consequence cannot 
be countenanced by the Court. Merely because an interim order had been 
passed pursuant to which reinstatement had been done, that cannot be a ground 
for allowing relief. [882-D-E; 883-AI 
a.. 
~ 
H 
880 
i 
STATE OF GUJARATv. DILIPBHAI SHALi GRAM PATIL [PASA YAT,J.] 881 
Kanoria Chemicals and Industries ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board A 
and Ors., (199715 SCC 772; Shree Chamundi Mopeds ltd. v. Church ofSouth 
India Trust Association CS! Cinod Secretariat, Madras, fl 9921 3 SCC I and 
Union of India v. Narender Singh, 120051 6 SCC I 06, relied on. 
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar and Ors., f19731 4 SCC 183, 
referred to. 
2. The order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. 
Since the High Court has not dealt with the matter on merits, the matter is 
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. 1883-DI 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4058 of2006. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8. 12.2004 of the High Court of 
Gujarat in L.P.A. No. 2475/2004. 
Robini, Hemantika Wahi and Shivangi for the Appellants. 
Vijay Kumar, R.N. Singh and Vishwajit Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. L.eave granted. 
D 
E 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. 
Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary because the High 
Court's order on the face of it is unsustainable. Respondent filed the writ 
petition questioning the order of discharge passed by the Superintendent of 
Police, Western Railway, Vadodara by order dated 23. I 1.1993. Civil Special F 
Application I 346 was filed by the respondent on 30. I I.I 993. On the said date 
notice was issued on the application and was made returnable on 10.12.1993. 
Reply was filed by the appellant-State on 16.12.1993. On I I. I. I 994 an interim 
order was passed directing reinstatement of the respondent pending disposal 
of the petition. Finally the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 31.3.2004. 
It was clearly indicated in the order that the interim reliefs stood vacated. 
Subsequently, the review application was filed which was dismissed on 
I 3.9.2004. Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal 2475 of 2004 which was 
allowed. The High Court's conclusions inter a/ia are as follows: 
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
perused the speaking order of admission an

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