- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties on preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the L.P.A. as it has been preferred against the interlocutory order dated 18-5-2011.
(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the respondent who has moved I. A. No. 1643 of 2011, the order dated 18-5-2011 is an interlocutory order by which only mandatory direction has been given to the appellants to restore electric connection of the petitioner- respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order is a final relief to the respondent-petitioner as respondent-petitioner in its writ petition claimed relief of restoration of electric connection and that has been granted by the impugned order dated 18-5-2011. It has also been submitted that the order has been passed under the provision of Section 135 (1) (A) of the Electricity Act and therefore, this Court may interfere with the impugned order dated 18-5-2011. It has also been submitted that the blanket mandatory injunction has been granted by the learned single Judge in a matter where there is a provisional demand of about Rupees One Crore plus and that too in a matter of electricity theft. We have perused the order dated 18-5-2011 and we are of the considered opinion that certain reliefs which are made in the writ petition may also be granted in the form of interim relief which depends upon the facts of the case. For example, in a case where there is a writ petition for injunction seeking restrain order against the respondents not to demolish the building of the writ petitioner then if the same relief is not granted at the interim stage when case is made out for grant of interim relief, then the writ petition may become infructuous if such relief is not granted as interim measure and in the same way, when there is a urgency like restoration of electric connection to any residential premises and the party comes to the Court and seek relief for restoration of electric connection, in that situation also interim relief having affected to grant of final relief, may also be granted and therefore, it cannot be said that granting of interim relief which amounts to granting final relief for a temporary period means to grant final relief. There may be more example but, so far as the present case is concerned, it is only an interim arrangement made by the order of the Court for restoration of the electricity to the writ petitioner/respondent and that can be discontinued immediately when the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.
(3.) WE are of the considered view that the order dated 18-5-2011 is an interim order. Whether the LPA is maintainable against an interim order has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 202 of 2010 (M/s. Laxmi Business and Cement Company Ltd. v. Jharkhand Electricity Board, Ranchi) wherein it has been held that the appeal is not maintainable against an interim order until and unless the order possess the characteristic or quality of finality or trappings of finality. The said decision of the Division Bench dated 1-7-2010 was challenged by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 23239 of 2010 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27-8-2010.;