Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14688 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Vaishy Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to delete the prayer No.1 of the writ petition.
The leave is granted.
Necessary correction in the relief clause be carried out during the course of the day.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order of the District Magistrate dated 19.1.2019, petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal under Rule 77 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, which is pending consideration. However, the appellate authority has not passed any order on the interim application of the petitioner, thus, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raja Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484 has held that if an appeal is filed and no order is passed on the stay application, serious prejudice is caused to the appellant. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
"4. .......Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand Yadav would have to vacate the room and hand over the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. 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."
In view of the above, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application for interim protection along with certified copy of this order before the appellate authority. In the event, petitioner submit any such application within two weeks, the lower appellate court shall consider and pass appropriate order in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court expeditiously.
The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 26.4.2019 A.N. Mishra