Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Rejoinder affidavit filed, taken on record. Since short question is involved in the present writ petition, with the consent of parties' Counsel I proceed to decide at admission stage. The question involved is whether a Court has got power to extend the time bound interim order in case it lapses on account of non -resumption of work by the Court on a working day? Against an order dated 20.1.2005 passed by Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies (opposite party No. 2) petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 98 of the Co -operative Societies Act before the Appellate Authority (opposite party No. 2). During the pendency of appeal a time bound interim order was passed by the Co -operative Tribunal laying the order of surcharge passed by Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies. The time bound interim order was for the period upto 14th March, 2005. On 14th March, 2005 in the absence of quorum the Tribunal had not resumed its work. A copy of questionnaire has been filed as Annexure -8 to the writ petition. The questionnaire shows that the appeal was adjourned for want of quorum. Accordingly, the interim order passed by the Tribunal could not be extended on 14th March, 2005. Petitioner had moved an application for extension of interim order on 16th March, 2005. The petitioner's application was heard by Co -operative Tribunal on the same day and it was rejected. The order dated 16th March, 2005 passed by the Co -operative Tribunal as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition is reproduced as under: - - Rejoinder filed by appellant adjournment application by L.C. Mr. S.P. Shukla and Mr. Rakesh Srivastava Fix 18.3.2005 for further final argument. The appellants has moved an application to extend the stay order dated 7.3.2005. We have heard the L.C. for the parties. The stay was not extended after 14.3.2005, hence now there is no ground to extend. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order petitioner had approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when the Tribunal had not resumed its work on 14.3.2005 it was highly unjustified on its part to reject the petitioner's application. Further submission of Shri Umesh Chandra assisted by Shri S.P. Sukla learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no one should suffer from any in action or the fault on the part of Court. One Tribunal had not resumed its work on 14th March, 2005 an application was moved in a short period, on 16th March, 2005 then it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to extend the interim order which was lapsed on 14th March, 2005.
(2.) WHILE defending the impugned order Shri S.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel had relied upon the judgment of this Court in Iqbal Hussain v. District Judge, Moradabad, 2002 (49) ALR 527 and submitted that after expiry of the interim order the Tribunal was not competent to extend the stay which was already lapsed on 14th March, 2005. On the other hand, petitioner's Counsel submits that the judgment relied upon by the Standing Counsel on Iqbal Hussain's case shall not be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in one another case in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra : 2001 (42) ALR 568, the same Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court had considered similar aspect of the matter and arrived to the conclusion that once time bound interim order is passed it shall not expire and Court has got right to extend the same on motion of appropriate application.
(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the parties Counsel. While delivering the judgment of Vishnu Dutt's (supra) His Lordship Justice V.M. Sahai had considered the various statutory provisions provided under the rules of the Court, coupled with various judgments of this Court, and arrived to the following conclusion: - - The law thus appears to be settled, so far this Court is concerned, that time bound stay orders do not cease to be effective by efflux of time. The result in law is that a time bound order has the same effect as an order till further orders of the Court. In other words it continues to operate till it is recalled, vacated or modified. The rules also do not provide for time bound stay orders. Yet the confusion prevails and every day large number of applications are filed for extension of such orders consuming lot of Court's time. In the circumstances it has become necessary not only to dispose of this application but also to issue following directions to the office: The request of extension of interim order is disposed of by saying that no order is necessary as the time bound interim orders do not exhaust after expiry of time mentioned in the order. The Registrar General of the Court is directed to issue necessary directions to the office within one week that in view of the decision of this Court the applications for extension of time bound interim orders need not be listed. But if the petitioner applies for question -answer from the office to find out whether his application was pending and interim order was continuing even after expiry of time mentioned in the order the answer be given by the office in the affirmative.;