2007 (7) TMI 718 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ appeal against interlocutory orders u/s 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of writ appeal against interlocutory orders u/s 2(1) of the Act

1. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents was that the writ appeal against the order dated 12-1-2007 is not maintainable due to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The Division Bench referred the question of whether the proviso absolutely bars an appeal to the Division Bench or if such an order can be appealed based on the nature, tenor, effect, and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. In W.A. No. 69/2007, the Division Bench held that the refusal of an interim order for staying the order of removal u/s 41-A of the Act caused serious injustice to the appellant and thus, the impugned order was not an interlocutory order and could be challenged in a writ appeal.

4. In W.A. No. 671/2007, another Division Bench opined that the order materially affects the final decision in the main case and has a vital impact, hence the appeal against the said order is maintainable.

5. Conversely, in W.A. No. 1318/2006, the Division Bench held that an appeal against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is not maintainable as the bar created by the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act would come into play.

8. Mr. R.P. Agrawal argued that the term 'order' under Article 226 is of wide amplitude and includes orders with characteristics of finality. The proviso to Section 2(1) should not be interpreted in absolute terms as it would annihilate the normative purpose of the main provision.

9. Mr. V.S. Shroti contended that the bar under the proviso should be treated as absolute, reflecting the legislative intent to exclude appeals against interlocutory orders.

10-20. The court examined various precedents and principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that an interlocutory order with the semblance of finality or affecting the rights of the parties can be treated as an order for all practical purposes.

21-28. The court reviewed the concept of interlocutory orders under the Letters Patent, noting that orders affecting the merits of the case or determining rights and liabilities could be considered judgments and thus appealable.

29-32. The court concluded that the decisions in Nav Nirman (Milan) Deria and Tejpal Singh correctly interpreted the law, while the decision in Arvind Kumar Jain did not and was overruled.

33. The court summarized its conclusions, stating that the proviso to Section 2(1) does not create an absolute bar to appeals, and the maintainability of an appeal depends on the nature, tenor, effect, and impact of the order. The guidelines from various Supreme Court cases should be considered, and the facts of each case must be scrutinized.

34. The matter was directed to be placed before the Division Bench for adjudication.