Rayat Shikshan Sanstha vs Suneel Shiva Gaikwad
- SCC(2010) 15 SCC 539
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a court vacates an order of injunction or declines to grant one, it is obliged to record reasons taking into consideration all relevant factors, particularly the nature of the controversy involved; a bare decision to vacate such an order without recorded reasons does not constitute a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Where a writ petition challenging an order of a tribunal has been admitted for consideration and an ad-interim injunction has been granted, the vacation of that injunction must be justified by reasons addressing whether the injunction would render the writ petition infructuous and cause irreparable loss to the applicant; absent such reasoned consideration, the vacation order is unsustainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rayat Shikshan Sanstha .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Suneel Shiva Gaikwad .....Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against order dated 20th
February, 2008,whereby a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Bombay,
has rejected the prayer of the appellant-Management for grant of stay of the
order passed by the School Tribunal, directing reinstatement of the respondent-
teacher.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the fact that the writ petition challenging the direction
by the School Tribunal to reinstate the respondent had been admitted for
consideration, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The writ petition was entertained by the High Court vide order dated 19th June,
2006 and an ad-interim order staying the operation and implementation of the
order passed by the Tribunal was passed. However, when the miscellaneous
application was taken up for consideration, the learned Judge vacated the said
order on the ground that no case for stay was made out.
..2/-
:2:
It is a well settled preposition of law that when an order of injunction is
passed, the Court is required to record the reasons. Similarly, when the Court feels that in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, order of injunction is
not necessary, it must record the reasons for doing so, taking into consideration
all the relevant factors, particularly the nature of the controversy involved.
We are convinced that in the present case if injunction against the
direction for reinstatement of the respondent is not granted, the writ petition
would be rendered infructuous, resulting in irreparable loss to the appellant
herein.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we
set aside the order dated 22nd February, 2008 and direct that the ad-interim
injunction granted by the High Court on 19th June, 2006 shall continue to be in
force till the disposal of the writ petition.
Since the matter pertains to the career of a teacher, we would request
the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ petition.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms but without any order
as to costs.
....................J. [ D.K. JAIN ]
....................J. [ R.M. LODHA ] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 20, 2009.
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