JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel representing the petitioner-respondent Balbeer Singh has also been heard apart from the learned Standing Counsel representing the remaining respondents.
2. Perused the record.
3. This Special Appeal is directed against as interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition which is still awaiting admission.
4. The petitioner-respondent No. 3 had filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal, praying for the quashing of the order dated 30.10.2002, whereby the Regional Committee had recommended for the recognition of the Committee of Management with Sri Dhan Raj Singh as its Manager and attestation of his signatures. The entire proceedings regarding the election held on 20.10.2002 for electing the office bearers of the Committee of Management had been challenged before the Regional Committee.
5. Apart from the aforesaid relief, another relief which had been claimed was for issuing a direction requiring the respondent-authorities to appoint a 'Prabandh Sanchalak' for managing the educational institution in question and make an enquiry in regard to the validity of the members of the general body of the society and thereafter take steps to constitute the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions contained in the approved scheme of administration.
6. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned interlocutory order has directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation annexing there with all those recommendations/objections which he had made earlier and which had not been considered by the Regional Committee prior to the passing of the impugned order. The Regional Committee has been directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner-respondent of being heard and set up his own case and to file his own documents. The Committee has been further required to dispose of the matter within a period of 4 weeks.
7. The learned Counsel for the parties have stated that they have exchanged their affidavits and the writ petition can be disposed of finally even at the admission stage itself.
8. Taking into consideration the nature of the pleading as well as the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, we are of the view that the interim order of the nature passed by the learned Single Judge could, if at all, be available only at the time of the disposal of the writ petition.
9. It may be noticed that in the decision in the case of U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee and Ors. v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Ors., reported in JT 1992 (1) SC 571, the Apex Court had indicated that it is a well known rule of practice and procedure that at an interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted unless there is very special reason to be indicated in clear terms in the interlocutory order itself.
10. We have searched in vain for any special reason in the impugned interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge. Further it should not be lost sight of that the purpose of an interlocutory order is to preserve the rights of the parties so that the proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt act by one side or the other during its pendency.
11. Moreover, an interlocutory order may be justified to prevent land slide changes rendering the proceedings ineffective or infructuous. In the present case, no such contingency could be pointed out.
12. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, this special appeal is disposed of finally with a direction that the writ petition be listed for admission/final disposal before the appropriate Bench in the next week.
13. It will be open to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the application for interim relief afresh in accordance with law in case the writ petition is not disposed of finally on the next date fixed.