Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Chief Sec.Of Govt.Of Karnataka vs M.Habeeb (D) By Lrs.

Supreme Court24 November 2015Anil R. Dave · Adarsh Kumar Goel

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a subordinate court order has been passed and subsequently challenged by the State through an appeal that remains pending before the appellate court, a higher court should not pass an order directing implementation of the subordinate court's order until the pending appeal challenging that order has been finally decided on its merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13695 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21823 Of 2012)

CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

M.HABEEB (D) BY LRS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The order dated 5th July, 2012, passed by the High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, passed in W.P.No.8608/2011

has been challenged in this appeal.

3. By virtue of the said order, the High Court has

directed that the order dated 15th April, 2008 passed in

W.P.No.3502/2006 by the learned Single Judge of the High

Court be implemented.

4. It is an admitted fact that the order dated 15 th

April, 2008 has been challenged by the present appellants-

the State of Karnataka by filing a writ appeal and the said Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.12.02 appeal is still pending. In view of the said fact, we are 08:08:35 IST Reason:

of the view that first of all that writ appeal should be

1 finally decided and till then, the impugned order should

not have been passed. We clarify that any observation made

in the impugned order shall not be taken into account by

the High Court and the writ appeal shall be finally decided

on its merits.

5. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is

disposed of with the above observations. Pending

application, if any, stands disposed of.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

..............J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi;

24th November, 2015.

2 ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.3 SECTION IVA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).21823/2012

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/07/2012 in WP No.8608/2011 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore)

CHIEF SEC.OF GOVT.OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M.HABEEB (D) BY LRS. Respondent(s) (Interim relief and office report) (For final disposal)

Date : 24/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil,Sr.Adv.

Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv. Mr. Parikshit Angadi,Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Deshpande,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy,Adv.

For Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs in terms of the signed Non-reportable judgment. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

(Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free