Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Kumar Agrawal vs District Trade And Industry ... on 8 December, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 660 of 2022
Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Sajan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years
R/o Shop No. 12 Sector II, Zone-2 Old Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. District Trade and Industry Centre General Manager Durg, District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Director Directorate of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road
No. 1 Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08.12.2022
Heard Mr. T. K. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 18.11.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4934 of 2022.
3. The appellant, who is the writ petitioner, is aggrieved by the
following portion of the order dated 18.11.2022 :
"Subject to the petitioner paying 75% of the demand notice,
the execution of remaining amount of the demand notice
dated 09.11.2022 (Annexure P/11) shall remain stayed."
4. Registry has pointed out that this appeal against an interim order is
not maintainable in view of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court
(Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, for short, the Act of 2006.
5. Section 2 of the Act of 2006 reads as follows :
"2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High
Court from a judgment or order of one judge of the
High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.-
(1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed
by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the
same High Court :
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an
interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India."
6. Thus, Section 2 of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie against
an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
before the Division Bench.
7. A lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was executed between the
petitioner and the Industry Department and by the letter dated
09.11.2022, the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.
93,18,344/- within a week, failing which, it was indicated that lease deed
would be cancelled.
8. The petitioner had prayed for an interim order for suspension of the
order dated 09.11.2022.
9. Mr. Jha submits that direction to pay 75% of the amount demanded
for stay of the notice dated 09.11.2022 is onerous and virtually, amounts
to rejection of the interim order.
10. The learned Single Judge, on due consideration, while admitting
the writ petition, had directed that subject to the petitioner paying 75% of
the demand notice, the demand notice dated 09.11.2022 shall remain
suspended. This is how the learned Single Judge moulded the prayer for
interim relief.
11. The order being purely an interlocutory order, we are of the opinion
that this writ appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
