R.Rukmangathan vs Tamilnadu Generation And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12628 Mad

                                                                   W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 29.06.2021

                                                    CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                                      and
                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY


                                           W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021


                  R.Rukmangathan                                         ... Appellant
                                                      vs

                  1.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
                    Corporation Limited [TANGEDCO] Board,
                    Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
                    Anna Salai,
                    Chennai – 600 002.

                  2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
                    TANGEDCO,
                    144, Anna Salai,
                    Chennai – 600 002.

                  3.The Chief Engineer,
                    Distribution South, TANGEDCO,
                    Chennai – 2.

                  4.The Superintending Engineer,
                    CEDC/SOUTH-II,
                    K.K.Nagar,
                    Chennai – 600 078.                                   ...Respondents
                                                     ****
                  Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
                  to grant an order of interim stay in W.M.P.No.13250 of 2021 in
                  W.P.No.12465 of 2021.


                 1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021


                                        For Appellants   : Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban


                                                          JUDGMENT

(delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)

The Writ Appeal is being filed against the order dated 08.06.2021

passed in W.M.P.No.13250 of 2021 in W.P.No.12465 of 2021 merely

issuing notice in the writ petition at the admission stage.

2. W.P.No.12465 of 2021 is filed for a writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent-TANGEDCO

Board and quashing the impugned order of the first respondent vide

(PER) FB TANGEDCO PROCEEDINGS No.15 dated 26.05.2021

confirming the order of the second respondent dated 16.10.2020 vide

(PER) CMD TANGEDCO PROCEEDINGS No.170 and consequently for a

direction to the 3rd respondent to post the petitioner in the rank of

Assistant Executive Engineer at Taramani or in any other place within

the circle.

3. W.M.P.No.13250 of 2021 is filed to stay the operation of

the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide (PER) FB

TANGEDCO PROCEEDINGS No.15 dated 26.05.2021 till the disposal of

the writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

4. At the time of admission, the writ court issued notice alone

to the respondents, returnable by 27.07.2021 and has not granted any

stay.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that

either interim order should have been granted or refused and merely

issuing notice is not correct. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

6. The above appeal is posted today before us for deciding the

maintainability of the same. It is well settled law that a writ appeal

would not lie against an interim order. When there is no final order

passed in an interim application, it is open to the parties to move before

the Writ Court for appropriate orders. Without doing so, the appellant

has rushed to this court by filing this writ appeal, which is not at all

maintainable. In this regard, we would like to rely on the following

decisions.

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:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

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 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."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

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:

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

(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 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

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 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 264.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

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

appeal.

12. It is only the notice before admission has been issued by

the learned Single Judge. This appeal has been filed by the appellant on

mere apprehension that the interim relief sought for is refused by the

Court. Therefore, it is premature for the petitioner to file an appeal in

the absence of any order. When the decisions concluded above,

specifically and categorically stated that there is no final order passed in

an interim application, the appeal cannot be filed, the present appeal

against the issuance of notice cannot be entertained.

13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is rejected as not

maintainable at the S.R. Stage itself. No costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

14. However, the appellant is advised to go before the

learned single Judge and get the writ petition finally disposed of.

Registry is directed to list the Writ Petition No.12465 of 2021 before the

learned single Judge who is having roster.

                                                                  [P.S.N. J.]          [K.R. J.]
                                                                                29.06.2021

                  Index    : Yes / No
                  Internet : Yes / No
                  Speaking / Non speaking order
                  rsi


                  To

1.Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited [TANGEDCO] Board, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3.The Chief Engineer, Distribution South, TANGEDCO, Chennai – 2.

4.The Superintending Engineer, CEDC/SOUTH-II, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

rsi

W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021

29.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/