Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25058 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Umar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jagannath Maurya
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Aggrieved by the order of demolition dated 18.09.2018 the petitioners stated to have preferred an appeal on 24.07.2019. It is stated that they have deposited the compounding fee before filing the appeal.
The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a direction be issued to respondent no.2 to expedite the appeal.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, we are view that the writ petition is misconceived. The petitioners have preferred the appeal on 24.07.2019 and rushed to this Court for a direction to expedite the appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri J.N.Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 to 5.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur, and others (1982) 3 SCC 484 has held that if a statutory appeal or revision is filed and no interim order is granted on the stay application, serious civil consequences will follow and the appeal/revision will become infructuous. The relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court is extracted below:
"4. ....... ......................................But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted."
Ordinarily this Court should not issue direction to the subordinate court/tribunal in view of the judgment of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others Vs. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB). As such type of direction will create separate class.
However, in the present case we find that in case the petitioners' application for interim protection is not considered, the civil consequences will follow. Accordingly, we direct the authority concerned to consider the application for interim protection expeditiously and pass an appropriate order.
We grant liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh expedite application along with a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.
Needless to say that we have not adjudicated the matter on the merit of the case and the respondent no.2 will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 MAA/-