HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.968 of 2014 DATED: 25.6.2014 Between:
The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad.
… Appellant And J.Srinivasulu and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.04.2014 in W.P.M.P.No.13528 of 2014 in W.P.No.10774 of 2014, whereby the learned Trial Judge passed conditional order of interim relief as sought for on depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The writ petition itself is admitted for hearing. The appeal in relation to the alleged unauthorized construction is pending before the appellate authority constituted under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. It is also admitted that an application for interim relief in relation thereto is also pending before the appellate authority.
Sri V. Venkataramana, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant says that the application for interim relief is yet to be disposed of by the appellate authority. He also says that taking advantage of the non-disposal of the application for interim relief, fresh notice has been issued by the appellant – Cantonment Board, which has given rise cause for approaching this Court.
In our view, on the given admitted fact, the writ petition should not have been entertained, as substantially same issue is pending before the appellate forum formed under the statute. The writ Court should not interfere with the jurisdiction at the first instance, unless there is failure of exercise of jurisdiction. That is not the allegation here.
However, keeping in view the totality of the matter, we think it fit to dispose of the appeal by the following order:
The interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge will continue for a period of fortnight from date. On expiry thereof, the said order shall stand vacated, provided, of course, the appellate authority does not pass any order as required to be done under the law in the pending interlocutory application.
We make it clear that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge or the observations recorded by us will not have any influence or binding factor upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal as well as the interlocutory application. It is desirable that the interlocutory application pending before the appellate authority shall be disposed of within a period of fortnight from this date. At the same time, the appeal shall also be disposed of, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of communication of this order. It would be open for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to make further application relating to the issues involved, if so advised. This judgment has been rendered as an exceptional case.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 25.6.2014 cbs/es