- (1.) More than half a century ago Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Four Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in A.M. Alison vs. B.L. Sen, 1957 AIR(SC) 227 held ".... we would refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it....". Followed by the same Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Supreme Court in Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Etc. vs. Gujrat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., 1980 AIR(SC) 1896 concluded "... And an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong. The difference is real though fine". And Sinha, J. in paragraph 36 of Manjunath A.S.H. vs. Tammanasa, 2003 10 SCC 390 settling the issue concluded, ".... it is now also well settled that a Court of Appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below".
(2.) In the prism of such a situation an order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. 13100 (W) of 2011 dated 29.9.2011 has been carried at the instance of the respondent No. 6 in the Writ Petition (appellant herein), who purportedly is a member of the Managing Committee and in the eye of law nothing but a busy body. He feels that the direction passed by the learned Writ Court setting aside the order of appointment of D.D.O. by the D.I.O.S. was not in accordance with law and practically thereby the final relief at the instance of the respondent No. 1 has been given.
(3.) Shri Bari in support of the appeal has raised a number of points. According to Shri Bari, the learned Single Judge did not take into account the fact that the approval of the Board was necessary before such a decision setting aside the appointment of D.D.O. was made. Shri Bari submitted that the learned Single Judge did not properly interpret Rule 27(3) of the Management Rules and has prayed for stay of the said order.;