Ramjishran Singh Kouraw vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4900 MP

                                         [1]




            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                  WP-5901-2019
     (ASHITA DUBEY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
                               OTHERS)
                                        with
  WP/10310/2019, WP/11330/2019, WP/16552/2019, WP/21292/2019, WP/24904/2019,
  WP/25181/2019, WP/25341/2019, WP/27154/2019, WP/03757/2020, WP/03937/2020,
  WP/04203/2020, WP/04523/2020, WP/05110/2020, WP/06248/2020, WP/06712/2020,
  WP/07009/2020, WP/08170/2020, WP/08184/2020, WP/08378/2020, WP/08923/2020,
  WP/08930/2020, WP/09328/2020, WP/09655/2020, WP/12049/2020, WP/16223/2020,
  WP/20093/2020, WP/11914/2021, WP/13234/2021, WP/13239/2021, WP/13298/2021,
                        WP/13497/2021, WP/13514/2021
25

Jabalpur, Dated: 01.09.2021
       Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Mr. Ashish Mishra,

Mr.Shubham Khamparia, Mr. D.K. Upadhyay, Mr. Rameshwar Singh Thakur,

Mr. Vinayak Prasad Shah, Mr. Ashish Trivedi, Mrs. Janhavi Pandit, Mr.Arjun

Parihar, Mr. B.P. Pathak, Mr. S.M. Guru, Mr. Anshuman Singh, Mr. Suyash

Thakur, Mr. Kamalnath Nayak, Mr. Ramlala Shukla, Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, Mr.

Dharmendra Singh Raghuvanshi, Mrs. Jyoti Praveen Verma, Mr. Varun

Thakur, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Yash Raj

Singh, Mr. Nityanand Mishra and Rohit Sohgaura, learned counsel for the

petitioners in the respective writ petitions.

       Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India (through V.C.),

Mr.Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General, Mr.K.M.Natraj, learned

Additional Solicitor General, Mr.R.K.Verma, learned Additional Advocate

General, Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General,

Mr.Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.Ajay Pratap

Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Darshan Soni, learned

Government Advocate and Mr. Yashraj Bundela, learned Government

Advocate for the respondent/State.

[2]

Mr. Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tiwari,

learned counsel for the respondent/MP PSC.

Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in

W.P.No.24904/2019.

Mr. Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Mr. Ram Bhajan Lodhi and Mr. Vinayak

Prasad Shah learned counsel for the intervenors in respective writ petitions.

I.A. No.8318/2021, I.A. No.8315/2021, I.A. No.8362/2021, I.A.

No.8364/2021, I.A. No.8374/2021 and I.A. No.8363/2021 have been filed in

respective W.P.No.5901/2019, W.P.No.25181/2019, W.P.No.3757/2020,

W.P.No.8923/2020, W.P.No.8930/2020 and W.P.No.9328/2020 for vacation of

the interim order passed therein on various dates on behalf of the State.

We have heard Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and

Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the

State of Madhya Pradesh, at some length, who sought to argue that the interim

orders passed by this Court on 19.3.2019 and extended on 28.1.2020, 31.1.2020

and lastly on 20.7.2020 deserve to be vacated in view of the settled proposition

of law that there is always a presumption in regard to constitutional validity of

an enactment and unless the enactment is declared ultra vires the Constitution,

its effect and operation cannot be stayed. Reliance in support of this argument is

placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bhavesh D. Parish and

others vs. Union of India and another, (2000) 5 SCC 471; Desiya Murpokku

Dravida Kazhagam (2) and another vs. Election Commission of India,

(2011) 4 SCC 224; and Health for Millions vs. Union of India and others,

(2014) 14 SCC 496. Learned Solicitor General of India further argued that this

Court has not recorded any reason in support of the interim orders passed from [3]

time to time and in fact, the interim order dated 31.1.2020 appears to have been

passed on the basis of suggestion given by the then Advocate General and

therefore, the Court may modify the stay orders in the terms that the

appointments to the extent of increased quota of reservation in favour of OBC

may remain subject to final outcome of the petitions.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions opposed

the prayer and submitted that even if the reasons are not elaborately mentioned

in the orders but the first order that has been passed on 19.3.2019 and thereafter,

when arguments were made on subsequent dates i.e. 28.1.2020 and 31.1.2020,

the matters were heard by the Court at quite some length and the relevant case

law was also cited. Since the orders have been passed after hearing both the

parties, sub-article (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be at this stage

invoked. It is, therefore, prayed that matters may be heard and decided finally.

Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar and considering that

the aforesaid interim orders have remained in operation for past two and half

years, rather than vacating the stay orders, we deem it appropriate to decide all

the writ petitions finally. We therefore, require the learned counsel for the

parties to come prepared on next date for arguments. In the meantime, they may

file their written submissions.

In view of above, the applications filed on behalf of the State for vacation

of interim relief are accordingly disposed of.

Matter to come up for hearing on 20.9.2021.

                (Mohammad Rafiq)                            (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
                  Chief Justice                                   Judge
   C.



Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2021.09.02 19:00:36
+05'30'