THE STATE OF ORISSA versus MADAN GOPAL RUNGTA.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 25-10-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
October 25. 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
ti. 
MADAN GOPAL RUNGTA. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
ti. 
ARJUN LADHA. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
ti. 
MALCOLM ANGUS TULLOCK. 
THE ST A TE OF ORISSA 
ti. 
MOHD. SERAJUDDIN AND OTHERS. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
ti. 
S. LAL 
[HARILAL KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SAsTRI, 
MuKHERJEA, 
DAs 
AND 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
A1YAR JJ.] 
Constz"tution of India, Art. 226--Writs grant£ng me1·e interim 
relief pending institution of civil suit without deciding rights of 
parties-Legality 
The High Court cannot make a direction under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution for the purpose of granting interim relief only pend-
ing the institution of a suit n1erely because the suit could not be 
instituted until after the expiry of 60 days from the date of a 
notice under Sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and in the mean-
while, unless .protected by the Court the 
applicant 
may suffer 
irreparable loss. 
Even though writs can be issued under Art. 226 for purposes 
other than the enforce1nent of 
fundamental rights, the concluding 
words of the article have to be read 
in the context of what pre.. 
cedes the same, and the existence of a right is 
the found3tion of 
the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under this article. 
An interim relief can be granted only in aid of, and as ancillary 
to, the main relief which n1ay be available to the party on final 
determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding. 
\ 
1-
,. 
f. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
29 
CrVJL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: Cases Nos. 300 to 
304 of 1951. 
Appeals under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution of 
India from a judgment dated 2nd August, 1951, of 
the High Court of Judicature at Orissa (Ray C. J. and 
Narasirnham J.) 
in Miscellaneous 
Judicial 
Cases 
Nos. 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 1951. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (G. N. 
/oshi, with him) for the appellant in all the appeals. 
N. C. Chatterjee (H. /. Umrigar and A. N. Roy, with 
him) for the respondent in Case No. 300 of 1951. 
Roshan Lal for the respondent in Cases Nos. 301 
and 304. 
N. C. Chatterjee (A. N. Roy, with him) for the 
respondent in Case No. 302 of 1951. 
N. C. Chatterjee (A. N. Roy, and A. N. Sinha, with 
him) for the respondent in Case No. 300 of 1951. 
1951. October 25. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KANIA C. J.-These are five companion appeals from 
the judgment of the High Court at Orissa, delivered 
on five petitions filed by the respondent in each of the 
appeals, to obtain from the Court a writ of mandamas 
and/or directions under article 226 of the Constitution 
of India. 
Each of the respondents alleged that between 1941 
and 1947 he had agreed to take from the Ruler of 
· Keonjhar a mining lease and had entered into posses-
sion of the area. 
Some of the petitioners alleged that 
they had spent 
money 
on the 
development of the 
mines and installed machinery 
to work; the same. It 
is however common ground tfuit there was no regis-
tered lease in favour of any of the respondents before 
1947. On the 14th December, 
1947, the Ruler of 
Keonjhar eUitered into a merger agreement with the 
Dominion of India and as from the 1st January, 1948, 
the State was merged in the Dominion. of India. After 
signing the merger agreement the Ruler gave registered 
1951 
T ht: Stat# of 
Orissa 
v. 
Madan Gopal 
Rungta. 
1951 
The State·of 
Oriss11 
v. 
Madan Gopal 
Ru"gta. 
Kania C. /. 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
leases on the 27th December, 1947, to the respondents 
in these appeals. 
In pursuance of the exercise of the 
powers conferred on the 
Government of 
Orissa by 
section 4 of the Extra 
Provincial Jurisdiction 
Act, 
1949, read with Notification No. 
172/IB dated 23rd 
March, 1948, of the Government of India, the Govern-
ment of Orissa issued a notification dated the 8th of 
June, 
1949, 
declaring, inter alia, the said leases to be 
void and not binding on it. This annulment was made 
expressly on the ground that these commitments were 
not reasonable and bona fide. Thereafter, the respond-
ents, along with others approached the Orissa Govern-
ment to give them leai;es and the State Government 
gave them temporary pdmits to work the inines in 
November, 1949. 
On the 3rd July, 
1951, 
however 
they passed an order canck;Uing the temporary permits 
and directed the respondents to remove their assets 
appertaining to the respective mines within a fortnight. 
The 
respondents thereupon filed the petitions before 
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.