Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dayanand Vedic Vidhalaya Sanchalk Samiti vs Education Inspector, Greater Bombay and Anr.

Supreme Court25 October 2007A.K. Mathur · Markandey Katju

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An interim order in proceedings challenging an administrative decision should not grant substantive relief that amounts to a final determination on the merits, and where an applicable rule or regulation provides for binary outcomes (approval or rejection with no intermediate provision), a court cannot create an intermediate remedy such as "ad hoc approval" as an interim measure.

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

Judgment

As delivered

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 5979 of 2001
PETITIONER:Dayanand Vedic Vidhalaya Sanchalk Samiti
RESPONDENT:Education Inspector, Greater Bombay and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/2007
BENCH:A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned interlocutory order dated 23rd November, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay. The prayer in that writ petition was for quashing the order of the Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai dated 30.9.2000. The order dated 30.9.2000 states that since certain appointments of teachers were made by the Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya, Mumbai in violation of the Rules, approval for such appointments is rejected.

In our opinion in such a petition there was no scope for grant of any interim order, and instead the writ petition should have been decided finally at an early date. However, what the High Court has done by the impugned interim order is to direct grant of ad hoc approval to some teachers.

This is a strange order passed by the High Court.

There is no provision in the rules for grant of ad hoc approval. Either approval is granted, or the prayer is rejected. There is no scope for a half way measure like that adopted by the High Court. We cannot appreciate such kind of interim orders which really amount to grant of final relief. This kind of practice of granting such interim orders should be discontinued and should not be encouraged.

However in this appeal against the order of the High Court, this Court on 29th January, 2001 observed that "the operation of the order under Challenge shall remain stayed unless the order under challenge has already given effect to." The writ petition is still pending before the High Court of Bombay. We request the High Court to dispose off the matter finally, if not disposed off so far, preferably within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is received by it.

The interim order dated 29th January, 2001 passed by this Court is made absolute, but shall only continue till the final disposal of the writ petition by the High Court.

The Civil Appeal is accordingly, disposed of.

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