Status quo must be maintained pending the Single Judge’s decision on interim applications or writ petitions.

The appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenged interim orders made in two writ petitions.

In the first matter, following a Section 81 inquiry under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, surcharge proceedings under Section 87 were initiated against the writ petitioner, who was also suspended and served with a charge memo; the Single Judge stayed the proceedings.

In the second matter, the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner had been terminated and that the interim order would operate to stay that termination.

The appellants argued that the interim orders impeded proceedings or effectively granted final relief.

The first respondent in W.A. No. 2142 of 2026 contended that the writ petition raised a jurisdictional challenge and that any request to vacate the interim order should be made before the Single Judge.

1. Whether the interim orders warranted interference in the writ appeals, given the parties’ competing claims about their effect on the underlying proceedings and service status.

2. Whether the parties should maintain the existing position pending reconsideration or final disposal by the Single Judge.

The appeals were brought under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Sections 81 and 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act arose as part of the factual context concerning the inquiry and surcharge proceedings, but the Court did not interpret or determine the application of those provisions.

The Court stated no specific precedent or substantive legal test for appellate review of interim orders; it instead directed that the parties return to the Single Judge for consideration of the pending applications or writ petitions.

The Court declined to determine the merits of either party’s claims at the interlocutory appellate stage.

It noted that the orders under challenge were interim orders, that one appellant asserted the writ petitioner had already been terminated, and that in the other matter proceedings were said to be blocked by an interim order made without reasons.

Rather than decide the jurisdictional or service-related disputes, the Court considered it appropriate for the Single Judge to hear the parties and determine the pending applications or writ petitions.

It preserved the parties’ positions in the meantime by directing status quo.

It directed the parties to maintain status quo until the Single Judge passes an order on the miscellaneous petitions or the writ petitions, and left the appellants at liberty to file appropriate applications before the Single Judge.

There was no order as to costs, and the interim applications in the appeals were closed.