- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
National Bal Bhawan And Another v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 3 was suspended by the appellants on 23 December 2000 pending a disciplinary inquiry. Respondent 1 set aside the suspension as illegal because prior approval had not been obtained. [1]
The appellants challenged that decision under Article 226 before the Delhi High Court, which granted an ad interim order on 4 January 2002. The Union of India filed a letters patent appeal against the interim order. While that appeal remained pending, the writ petition was finally disposed of on 14 February 2002 in terms of the interim order. Respondents 1 and 2 neither amended their pending appeal to challenge the final order nor filed a fresh appeal, but the Division Bench subsequently allowed their appeal against the interim order. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted special leave. [2][1]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the interim order merged into the final order disposing of the writ petition, thereby rendering the letters patent appeal against the interim order infructuous. [3][4]
- Whether the Division Bench could decide that appeal on its merits when the final order had not been challenged. [3][4]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The interim order dated 4 January 2002 merged into the final order dated 14 February 2002, rendering the appeal against the interim order infructuous. [3]
- Because Respondents 1 and 2 did not appeal against the final order, the Division Bench could not decide the pending appeal on its merits. [3]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court accepted the appellants' submission. It applied the settled principle that an interim order passed during a writ proceeding merges into the final order once the writ petition is finally disposed of. [3][4]
Accordingly, Respondents 1 and 2 were required either to amend their pending appeal so as to challenge the Single Judge's final order or to institute a fresh letters patent appeal against that order. Their failure to take either course meant that the Division Bench could not properly determine the merits through an appeal directed only against the superseded interim order. [4]
The Court nevertheless preserved an opportunity to obtain appellate review by permitting Respondents 1 and 2 to seek amendment of their appeal. It directed the High Court to condone the delay if such an application was filed and clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the underlying merits. [4]
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISPOSED OF; IMPUGNED ORDERS SET ASIDE. Respondents 1 and 2 were permitted to apply to amend their appeal to challenge the Single Judge's final order, with the High Court directed to condone the resulting delay and decide the appeal expeditiously. No costs were awarded. [4][5]
The decision directly nullified the Division Bench's determination while preserving a procedural route for Respondents 1 and 2 to challenge the final order. The Supreme Court left the substantive merits undecided and set no new precedent, instead applying an established merger principle. [4]
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. On 23-12-2000, Respondent 3 herein was suspended by the appellants herein pending disciplinary inquiry by the Chairperson of Appellant 1. However, Respondent 1 took the view that since no prior approval as regards suspension was obtained, the suspension order was illegal. Consequently, the suspension order was set aside. Against the said order passed by Respondent 1, the appellants herein filed a petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Delhi. While entertaining the said petition, the High Court granted an ad interim order on 4-1-2002. Aggrieved, the Union of India preferred a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court against grant of interim order. While the said appeal was pending, the writ petition itself was disposed of by an order dated 14-2-2002 in terms of the interim order dated 4-1-2002. However, Respondents 1 and 2 herein did not challenge the final order passed by the High Court either by seeking amendment in the pending appeal or by filing a fresh appeal. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondents 1 and 2 herein. Against the said order passed by the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us.
3. When the matters were taken up, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the interim order dated 4-1-2002 having merged with the final order dated 14-2-2002, the appeal preferred by Respondents 1 and 2 herein was rendered infructuous, and no appeal against the final order having been filed, it was not open to the High Court to decide the appeal on merits. We find merit in the submission.
4. It is no longer res integra that once a writ petition is finally disposed of by the High Court, any interim order passed in pending writ petition merges with the final order. If the respondents were aggrieved by the interim order in terms of which the writ petition was disposed of, it was incumbent upon the respondents either to have amended the memo of appeal by challenging the final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court or ought to have preferred fresh letters patent appeal against the final order passed by the Single Judge. In that view of the matter, the orders under challenge are set aside. However, we permit Respondents 1 and 2 herein to move an application for amendment of the memo of appeal by challenging the final order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court. In case such an application is filed, the High Court shall condone the delay in filing the amendment application. The appeal may be decided expeditiously. We may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
5. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert