1951 (10) TMI 19 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under article 226, when the Court expressly stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a like nature could be issued? Held that - Appeal allowed. Article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court has purported to do. If the Court was of opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other directions of a like nature; and pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of article 226 does not permit such an action. On that short ground the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be upheld.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of annulment of mining leases by the State of Orissa
- Scope of writ of mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Jurisdiction of the Court to grant interim relief under article 226
- Finality of orders passed by the Court in the petitions

Validity of Annulment of Mining Leases:
The case involved appeals from the High Court at Orissa concerning mining leases granted by the Ruler of Keonjhar before the merger with the Dominion of India. The State of Orissa annulled these leases, leading to petitions for writs of mandamus by the respondents. The Court considered whether the annulment was lawful and if the State had the right to cancel the leases before the specified period. The judges examined the circumstances, including the temporary permits issued and the estoppel arising from them, to determine if there was a case to be tried.

Scope of Writ of Mandamus:
The Court analyzed the scope of the writ of mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was noted that the respondents had no other convenient legal remedy at the time, as filing a suit required a waiting period under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court, therefore, granted interim relief to prevent irreparable loss to the respondents, allowing them to retain possession of the mining leases until the initiation of a suit.

Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Relief:
The judgment raised the question of whether article 226 could be utilized solely for granting interim relief without determining the rights of the parties. The Court concluded that article 226 should not be used to provide final relief in the form of interim measures, especially when the judges refrained from deciding on the parties' rights pending a civil suit. The judges emphasized that interim relief should only supplement the main relief available upon final determination of legal rights.

Finality of Court Orders:
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, stating that the directions given by the High Court for interim relief did not align with the purpose of article 226. The Court emphasized that article 226 should not be used to circumvent procedural requirements like section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment highlighted that the High Court's directions for interim relief were not in line with the intended use of article 226, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the petitions. The judgment clarified the limitations of article 226 in granting interim relief and emphasized the necessity for determining legal rights before issuing such directives.