Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Rajendiran on 14 June, 2021
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and
Fisheries (MP2) Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
2.Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director-cum-Commissioner
of Milk Production
Aavin Illam, No.3A,
Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035
3.The Personnel Committee
Rep. by its Chairman
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.,
Aavin Illam, No.3A,
Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai
Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035 ... Appellants in
both Appeals
vs
S.Rajendiran ...Respondent in
both Appeals
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the common order dated 15.10.2020 made in W.M.P.
Nos.18541 & 18544 of 2020 in W.P. Nos.14925 & 14927 of 2020.
****
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan,
Government Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
(delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
Challenge in these writ appeals is to the common order dated
15.10.2020 made in W.M.P. Nos.18541 & 18544 of 2020 in W.P.
Nos.14925 & 14927 of 2020.
2. W.P. No.14925 of 2020 is for a writ of certiorarified
mandamus to call for the records relating to the order
No.2601/Pers.IR.1/2019 dt.14.09.2020 passed by the Managing
Director-cum-Commissioner of Milk Production, Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., and to quash the same as
being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the service byelaws of the
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd and for a
consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further
proceedings in pursuance to the charge memo
No.2601/Pers.IR.1/2019 dt. 15.07.2019 and to treat the period of
suspension from 20.02.2019 to 26.12.2019 as spent on duty without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
any leave adjustment.
3. W.P. No.14927 of 2020 is for a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records relating to the order
No.1873/Pers.Estt.1/2020 dt.17.09.2020 passed by the Managing
Director-cum-Commissioner of Milk Production, Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., and to quash the same as
being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the service byelaws of the
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd and for a
consequential direction to the respondents therein to restore the
petitioner to the post of General Manager (Dairying) with all
consequential benefits and to settle his terminal benefits in the scale
of General Manager (Dairying).
4. At the time of admission of both the writ petitions, the writ
petitioner was granted an order of interim stay. The second
respondent therein also filed a counter affidavit seeking to vacate the
interim stay granted.
5. It is well settled law that a writ appeal would not lie against
an interim order. Instead of getting the stay vacated in the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
petitions and get the writ petitions finally disposed of, the appellants
have rushed to this court by filing these writ appeals, which are not at
all maintainable.
6. The issue as to whether a writ appeal under clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is maintainable as against an interim order granted in a
writ petition, is no longer res integra. An application under Article
226(3) of the Constitution of India, can be filed for vacating the said
order and that an appeal directly against such interim order should not
be entertained. For better appreciation, Article 226(3) is extracted
hereunder:
(3) Where any party against whom an interim
order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any
other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating
to, a petition under clause (1), without?
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition
and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of
such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the
party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the
application within a period of two weeks from the date on
which it is received or from the date on which the copy of
such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or
where the High Court is closed on the last day of that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not
so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of
that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said
next day, stand vacated.
7. In Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Chunilal Nanda & Ors, in Appeal (civil) 1727 of 2002, dated
25.05.2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and in Paragraph No.16, it has been
held as follows:
16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed
during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other
of the following categories :
(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in
controversy in the
main case.
(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which
materially and directly affects the final decision in the main
case.
(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or
question which is not the subject matter of the main case.
(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the
progress of the case till its culmination in the final
judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or
some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally
determine the rights and obligations of the parties.
The term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the Letters
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as
defined in section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in
Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which,
though may not finally and conclusively determine the
rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in
controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral
matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and
obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall
under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore,
'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the
Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under
categories (iv) and (v) are not judgments for purpose of
filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent."
8. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in The State of Tamil
Nadu vs. Evos Design Living Private Limited made in W.A.
No.1024 of 2017 dated 21.08.2017 has held that writ appeal filed
against an interim order is not maintainable.
9. In Southern Academy of Maritime Studies vs. A.M.Akash
and others made in W.A. No.1819 of 2019 dated 14.06.2019
another Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, referring to the following
decisions, has held that writ appeal against interim order should not
be entertained and further observed that the appellant can move the
writ court under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. The
relevant paragraphs in the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
11. The issue as to whether a writ appeal under
clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable as against
an interim order granted in a writ petition, is no longer res
integra. The same has been dealt with by a Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court and held that when an interim
order is passed, an application under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India, can be filed for vacating the said
order and that appeal directly against such interim order
should not be entertained. Reference can be made to the
following decisions.
(i) In Anna University v. Narayanaguru
International Institute of Science and Technology
(Regd. Trust) and others in W.A.(MD) No.466 of
2015 dated 14.05.2015, after considering the earlier
decisions of this Court, a Hon'ble Bench, held that a writ
appeal as against an interim order, which has not attained
finality, granted in a writ petition, is not maintainable.
(ii) A similar question came for consideration before
another Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in R.Kannan
v. Indcom Electronics Ltd., stating that the order
impugned therein is not a judgment within the meaning of
Clause 15 of Letters Patent of this court, a Hon'ble
Division Bench, elaborately considered the matter, and
held that the interim order made in the petition, which has
not reached finality, determining the rights and liabilities
between the parties cannot be said to have caused grave
and substantial injustice to the appellant and will not fall
within the meaning of the word 'judgment' occurring in
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, the Hon'ble
Divsion Bench held that writ appeal was not maintainable
against an interim order.
(iii) In Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jeyakumar Joseph
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
Jeyakumar v. The Governing Counsel of American
College and others in W.A. No.540 of 2008, dated
02.08.2008, another Hon'ble Division Bench of this court
held that ex-parte interim orders are not judgments for an
aggrieved person to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Appellate Court, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Adopting the same legal principle, W.A. No.2347 of 2012,
dated 05.12.2012, was disposed of by the Hon'ble First
Bench giving liberty to the appellant therein to file
application to vacate the interim order.
(iv) In Hindu Nadar Educational Trust,
represented by its Managing Trustee and others vs.
Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai, Nilakottai, in W.A.(MD)
No.312 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016, a Hon'ble Division
Bench of this court, held as follows:
"In the abovesaid circumstances, we would only
clarify that the interim order, granted in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23
and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated
05.01.2016, would be an interim order, till the
miscellaneous petitions are finally heard and decided,
along with the vacate stay petition. It shall not be an
interim order, as prayed for, in the miscellaneous
petitions, till the disposal of the writ petition. It could only
be an interim order, till the parties to the lis, are put on
notice, in the interim applications and heard. With the
above clarification, we only request the Writ Court, to take
up the injunction petitions in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of
2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016, along with the vacate
stay petition, and pass orders, as expeditiously as
possible. Registry is directed to place the matter before
the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.1856
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
of 2016 is closed."
(v). In Special Tahsildar No.III, Land
Acquisition, Lignite Project, Neyveli, vs.
V.Rangasamy Reddiar, reported in AIR 1988 Madras
162, this Court, has held as follows:
"2.We are very much concerned to note a disturbing
tendency that is fast developing now-a-days. In the recent
past, we have come across several matters in which
appeals are filed against ad interim exparte orders without
resorting to the normal course of approaching the court
which passed such orders and seeking appropriate further
orders in spite of the law having been clearly laid down by
a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Shukoor v.
Umachander AIR 1976 Mad 350. No doubt, that case
arose out of an order emanating from a Subordinate
Court. The ratio of the decision will apply with more force
to an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court.
Moreover the ad interim orders are not judgments within
the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3.What concerns us most is that the Government
and statutory Corporations very often indulge in by-
passing the only lawful course and adopting a course
expressly disapproved by this court. We hold that the
appeals ought not to have been filed in this case. The only
course open to the Government was to approach the court
in charge of civil miscellaneous petitions and pray for the
passing of appropriate final orders in the civil
miscellaneous petition. We hope that there will be no
recurrence of similar instances in future. We make it clear
that if we come across any such appeals in future, we will
be constrained not only to dismiss such appeals, but also
penalise the parties concerned with orders of heavy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
costs."
The above said decision (AIR 1988 Madras 162)has
been followed in Syed Zehera Jabeen vs.
S.Padmanabhan, reported in 1988 II MLJ 423 = 1989
(1) L.W 112, and Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., reported in 2013 (5) CTC
10. Another Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in a recent
judgment in P.Mahalingam vs. Vanitha and others reported in
MANU/TN/3286/2020 following the decision of this court in
Southern Academy of Maritime Studies (supra) held that writ
appeal against interim order is not maintainable.
11. In the light of the decisions of the Division Benches of this
court stated supra, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ
appeals. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed as not
maintainable. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12. However, the appellants are advised to go before the
learned single Judge and get the writ petitions finally disposed of.
Registry is directed to list the writ petitions before the learned single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
Judge who is having roster.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
14.06.2021
Asr
Index : Yes/No
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
W.A. Nos.1297 & 1299 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.8212 & 8214 of 2021
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
