Telangana High Court
Muvva Jyothi vs The Union Of India on 21 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.397 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri E.Hari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants;
Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen
Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing
Counsel for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), for
respondent Nos.3 to 5.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the interim order
passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in
W.P.No.22802 of 2024 dated 13.03.2025 whereby the ex parte
interim order granted by the Writ Court on 21.08.2024 was
vacated by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that
although the impugned order is an interlocutory order, it has a
final impact on the appellants and therefore, the intra-Court
appeal is, indeed, maintainable. He submits that the matter
pertains to construction of Highway between Nagpur and
Vijaywada. Initially, the concerned Collector recommended for
change of alignment for the proposed four line National Highway,
but, since it was not considered, the learned Single Judge by
ex parte interim order directed to maintain status quo. The said
position was sought to be clarified by a letter dated 01.02.2024
addressed by the concerned Principal Secretary to the Chairman,
NHAI. On the basis of this clarification alone, the ad interim order
was vacated. The appellants had also pressed the grounds
relating to vagueness of notification and absence of environmental
clearance which points have not been considered by learned
Single Judge while vacating the interim order. Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Kolkata Municipal
Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah 1 in support of his
submissions.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI supported the impugned
order and urged that the project is of the year 2019. There is
(2024) 10 SCC 533
already a delay in execution of the project because of ex parte
interim order. Needless to emphasise that it involves escalation of
prices and is not in public interest. Against the interlocutory
order, the writ appeal is not maintainable.
6. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above and no other point is pressed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
8. The ad interim order granted by the learned Single Judge on
21.08.2024 shows that it was solely based on the recommendation
of the Collector relating to alignment. The impugned order of
vacation of the interim order shows that the issue of alignment
was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Similarly, whether other points in support of continuance of
interim order, namely vagueness of notification and absence of
environment clearance, were raised or not can be remembered and
considered by the same Bench.
9. Thus, we find no reason to entertain this intra-Court appeal
and deem it proper to dispose of this writ appeal by reserving
liberty to the appellants to file appropriate application for
continuance of interim order/review of the impugned order.
10. With the aforesaid observations and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the writ appeal is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
21.04.2025
sa/vs
