Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2008
Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 9433 of 2007
Union of India & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Ram Kumar Thakur ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present
appellants on the ground that the respondent had been reinstated in service
pursuant to the judgment of the learned single Judge which was impugned
in the writ appeal filed before the Division Bench. The High Court held that
the appeal had therefore become infructuous.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order
of the High Court has no legal basis. Merely because the impugned order
before the High Court was implemented to avoid possible contempt
proceedings that did not take away the right of the appellants to prefer an
appeal and question correctness of the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the
judgment.
4. It has been noted by this Court that if even in cases where interim
relief is not granted in favour of the applicant and the order is implemented
that does not furnish a ground for not entertaining the appeal to be heard on
merits. (See : Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. [2006(5) SCC 127].
Similar view was also take in Nagesh Datta Shetti v. State of Karnataka
[2005(10) SCC 383].
2
5. In Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar & Ors. [1973(4) SCC 183] it
was observed at para 23 as follows:
“Mr Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact that
after the judgment of the High Court the State Government
has passed an order on March 19, 1971, the effect of which is
to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya
Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade III of
Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been passed by the
State Government only to comply with the directions given
by the High Court. It was made during a period when the
appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The
fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the
directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that
the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous.”
6. Above position was also noted in Union of India v. Narender Singh
[2005(6) SCC 106].
7. Above being the position the impugned order of the High Court
cannot be maintained and is set aside. The writ appeal shall be heard by the
High Court on merits about which we express no opinion. The appeal is
allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
………………..…………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
3
……….…………………………..J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi,
October 15, 2008
4