UNION OF INDIA versus ERA EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 05-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · 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)

\ 
-
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
ERA EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANR. ETC. 
APRIL 5, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Procedure Code, 1908-0rder XXXIX-lnterim relief-Grant of-Though 
order 39 not applicable in granting interim relief in a writ petition, but the 
principles laid down under the. order are required to be taken into considera-
tion-In cases of medical education-Normally the Court should not interfere 
C 
at the interim stage, and even if interference is required in a case of 
unsustainable order, the authority should be directed to reconsider the case. 
Medical Council Act, 1956. 
Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 227-Interim order-Grant a/-
Without allowing the respondents to file counter affidavit whether justified-
Held, it not only violates the norms of grant of interim relief, but also violates 
the principles of natural justice. 
Interim mandatory 1"elief-To run medical college-Despite the fact that 
Central Government had rejected such permission-Held, not warranted. 
Powers under-Are to be exetcisedfor rendering justice in accordance 
with law. 
Practice & Procedure-Interlocutory order-Interference wit~-Normally 
not done-But when primafacie it appears that the order cannot be justified by 
any judicial standard, the ends of justice and the rieed to maintain judicial 
discipline require it to be done by indicating the reasons for such interference 
without prejudice to the rights of one side or the otlzer. 
Respondent No. 1 filed an.application to the Central Government 
for consent to establish a Medical College, which was. rejected after con-
sideration. The respondent filed a writ petition before High Court, against 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the order of rejection. High Court on the date of admission of the case 
itself granted interim mandatory order to run the medical college and 
H 
1001 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
stayed the order of the Central Government. Appeal was filed against the 
interim order passed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Normally, this Court would hesitate to interfere with an 
B 
interlocutory order, but in a case where primafacie it appears that the said 
order cannot be justified by any judicial standard, the ends of justice and 
the need to maintain judicial discipline requires the court to do so and to 
indicate the reasons for such interference without prejudice to the rights 
of one side or the other. (1003-F -G] 
C 
2.1. The extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 are to be exercised 
for rendering justice in accordance with the law. Medical College cannot 
be established with the previous sanction of the Central Government as 
provided under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. By granting the 
interim mandatory order, without allowing the respondents therein time 
D 
to file counter affidavit, the High Court not only violated norms for grant 
ofinterim relief, but has also violated the principles of natural justice and 
has allowed the petition on the date of its admission. (1004-A·B] 
2.2. It may not be that Order XXXIX of the C.P.C. would be applica· 
ble at the stage of granting interim relief in a petition under Articles 226 
E 
or 227 of the Constitution, but at the same time various principles laid 
down under Order XXXIX for granting ad interim reliefs are required to 
be taken into consideration. [1004~F -G] 
F 
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, [1994] 4 SCC 225, re-
ferred to. 
2.3. Ngrmally Court should not interfere and even if interference is 
required in a case of unsustainable order, the authority should be directed 
to re-consider the case on the norms prescribed under the Act and/or the 
rules. [1005-E] 
G 
Shivaji University v. Bharti Vidyapeeth and Others, [1999] 3 SCC 224; 
Civil Appeal Nos. 5045 and 5046 of 1998 in Medical Council of India New 
Delhi v. State of H.P. and Another, SC order dated 16.2.2000; Andhra 
Pradesh Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra 
Pradesh and Another, (1986] 2 SCC 667 and Krishna Priya Ganguly and 
H 
Other v. University of Lucknow and Other, [1984] 1 SCC 307, referred to. 
-.. 
-
.. . 
I 
-
U.0.1. v. ERA EDUCATIONAL TRUST [SHAH, J.] 
1003 
2.4. It is apparent that even at the final stage the High Court nor· 
A 
. ~....,,. 
mally could not have granted such a mandatory order. Unfortunately, 
mystery has no place in judicial process. Hence, the impugned order can· 
not be justified by any judicial standard and requires to be quashe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.