State of U.P. and Others Vs. Sunanda Prasad and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3675 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8628 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8628 of 1999)
Petitioner: State of U.P. and Others
Respondent: Sunanda Prasad and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3675 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8628 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8628 of 1999)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 13, 1999
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India 1950
Articles 136, 226 – Interference by Supreme Court – Legality of a transfer order pending before CAT – Interim orders of status-quo passed – Meanwhile writ in High Court where interim orders passed. Held that, on facts, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining writ petition and passing interim orders. Hence, interfered and orders quashed.(Paras 4, 5)
Constitution of India 1950
Articles 136, 226 – Interference by Supreme Court – Legality of a transfer order pending before CAT – Interim orders of status-quo passed – Meanwhile writ in High Court where interim orders passed. Held that, on facts, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining writ petition and passing interim orders. Hence, interfered and orders quashed.(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Though ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an inter-im order passed by the High Court, but in the case in hand the High Court having entertained a writ petition while the grievance of the respondents is still pending before the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal and having passed an interim order annulling the order of the Tribunal, we think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
4. We have no doubt in our mind that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining a writ application when the legality of the order of transfer is a subject-matter of a pending pro-ceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Trib-unal has passed an order of status quo. If the appellant authori-ty has violated any interim direction of the Tribunal, the appro-priate remedy is to file an application for contempt and we are told that such application has been filed, which is pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also fixed up the hearing of the matter on 16-7-1999.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court stands quashed. The writ petition is also dismissed. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter on the date on which the matter has already been fixed for hearing.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Though ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an inter-im order passed by the High Court, but in the case in hand the High Court having entertained a writ petition while the grievance of the respondents is still pending before the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal and having passed an interim order annulling the order of the Tribunal, we think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
4. We have no doubt in our mind that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining a writ application when the legality of the order of transfer is a subject-matter of a pending pro-ceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Trib-unal has passed an order of status quo. If the appellant authori-ty has violated any interim direction of the Tribunal, the appro-priate remedy is to file an application for contempt and we are told that such application has been filed, which is pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also fixed up the hearing of the matter on 16-7-1999.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court stands quashed. The writ petition is also dismissed. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter on the date on which the matter has already been fixed for hearing.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
