http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4058 of 2006

PETITIONER: State of Gujarat & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Dilipbhai Shaligram Patil

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7782 of 2005

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

                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 23.11.1993.  Civil Special Application 1346 was filed by  the respondent on 30.11.1993. On the said date notice was  issued on the application and was made returnable on  10.12.1993. Reply was field by the appellant-State on  16.12.1993. On 11.1.1994 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 13.9.2004.  Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal 2475 of 2004 which  was allowed. The High Court’s conclusions inter alia are as  follows:

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties  and having carefully perused the speaking  order of admission and interim order dated  11.1.1994 passed by S.M. Soni, J. (as he then  was), this petition was required to be allowed.   In fact, by an interim order, the learned Single  Judge has been particularly allowed the writ  petition."

       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  High Court’s view is clearly untenable and interim order  passed looses effect after final disposal of the writ petition.   Merely because an interim order had been passed earlier that  High Court could not have concluded that by the interim order  learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition.     In fact, in  the present case learned Single Judge while dismissing the  writ petition clearly noted that the interim reliefs stood  vacated because of the dismissal of the writ petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

   Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order  of the High Court.  

It is well settled that an order granting pending disposal  of the 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  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  would also mean rewarding writ petitioner in spite of his  failure. Any such unjust consequence cannot be  countenanced by the courts.  [(See Kanoria Chemicals and  Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. 1997  (5) SCC 772)].

The position was also highlighted in Shree Chamundi  Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association  CSI  Cinod Secretariat, Madras  (1992 (3) SCC 1).   It was inter alia  noted as follows:-

"While considering the effect of an  interim order staying the operation of the  order under-challenge, a distinction has to be  made between quashing of an order and stay  of operation of an order. Quashing of an order  results in the restoration of the position as it  stood on the date of the passing of the order  which has been quashed. The stay of  operation of an order does not, however, lead  to such a result. It only means that the order  which has been stayed would not be operative  from the date of the passing of the stay order  and it does not mean that the said order has  been wiped out from existence. "

(underlines for emphasis)

Merely because an interim order had been passed  pursuant to which reinstatement had been done, that cannot  be a ground for allowing relief. (See Union of India v. Narender  Singh (2005 (6) SCC 106).   

The position was also noted in Union of India v. G.R.  Prabhavalkar and Ors. (1973 (4) SCC 183) as follows:  "Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel, then  referred us to the fact that after the judgment  of the High Court the State Government has  passed an order on March 19, 1971, the effect  of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of  the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the  Sales Tax Officers, Grade in, of Bombay. This  order, in our opinion, has been passed by the  State Government only to comply with the  directions given by the High Court. It was  made during a period when the appeal  against the judgment was pending in this  Court. The fact that the State Government  took steps to comply with the directions of the  High Court cannot lead to the inference that  the appeal by the Union of India has become  infructuous."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh  consideration on merits.   The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without  any order as to costs.