STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on September 11,2006

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
DILIPBHAI SHALIGRAM PATIL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

FRANCO INDIAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-224] [REFERRED TO]
GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO LTD VS. NEW MANGALORE POINT TRUST [LAWS(KAR)-2008-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHKUMAR G CHAVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-249] [REFERRED TO]
VASAVAN VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2016-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
RANDOLF HOWARD PARIAT VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LALI MISHRA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-138] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA CHANDRA MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASHREE VANI VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
ANIYAN VS. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
PROF. V.M. ANIYAN VS. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI PRASAD PAL VS. STATE CHIEF INFORMATION ... [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR MAURYA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-177] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED HARUN & ANOTHER VS. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-174] [REFERRED]
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REP BY VICE-CHANCELLOR VS. AKHIL M NAIR [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-264] [REFERRED TO]
SYAMALA RAJAN VS. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-454] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P AND OTHERS VS. VIJAY SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-307] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary because the High Courts order on the face of it is unsustainable. Respondent filed the writ petition questioning the order of discharge passed by the Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara by order dated 23.11.1993. Civil Special Application 1346 was filed by the respondent on 30.11.1993. On the said date notice was issued on the application and was made returnable on 10.12.1993. Reply was filed by the appellant-State on 16.12.1993. On 11.1.1994 an interim order was passed directing reinstatement of the respondent pending disposal of the petition. Finally the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 31.3.2004. It was clearly indicated in the order that the interim reliefs stood vacated. Subsequently, the review application was filed which was dismissed on 13.9.2004. Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal 2475 of 2004 which was allowed. The High Courts conclusions inter alia are as follows:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the speaking order of admission and interim order dated 11.1.1994 passed by S.M. Soni, J. (as he then was), this petition was required to be allowed. In fact, by an interim order, the learned Single Judge has been particularly allowed the writ petition."

(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Courts view is clearly untenable and interim order passed looses effect after final disposal of the writ petition. Merely because an interim order had been passed earlier that High Court could not have concluded that by the interim order learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition. In fact, in the present case learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition clearly noted that the interim reliefs stood vacated because of the dismissal of the writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.