Telangana High Court
The Chief Priest vs G.T.V. Manidhar on 27 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.338 and 697 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice)
Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
Rahul Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.338 of
2024; Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri A.V. Raghuram, learned counsel for respondent
No.1/Writ Petitioner in W.A.No.338 of 2024 and
Sri K. Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.697 of 2024, Sri V. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 in W.A.No.697 of 2024 and Sri Bhukya Mangilal
Naik, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, for official
respondents-Endowment Department in both the Writ Appeals.
2. Since common order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.6335 and 37898 of 2022 is called in question in these
Writ Appeals, at the joint request of the parties both the Writ
Appeals are analogously heard.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the learned
Single Judge without deciding the objection regarding
maintainability of the Writ Petitions, which goes to the root of the
matter and based on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
Srivari Daada v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams 1 passed the
impugned interlocutory order which is bad in law. The learned
Single Judge should not have directed the Principal Secretary,
Endowments Department, Hyderabad, to constitute a committee
and submit a report.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
these Writ Appeals are not maintainable because (i) out of three
Writ Petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.6335, 37898 and 13168 of 2022 in
which the impugned interlocutory order was passed in one Writ
Petition no appeal is preferred, as such the order has attained
finality, (ii) against an interlocutory order no Writ Appeal is
maintainable and (iii) the learned Single Judge merely passed a
direction for constitution of a committee and to obtain report,
which is in furtherance of adjudication. Thus, no fault can be
found in the impugned order.
5. No other point is pressed.
6. The question of maintainability of the Writ Appeal against
the interlocutory order is not res integra.
S.L.A.(C) No. 6554 of 2021, decided on 16.11.2021.
7. In The University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar,
Central University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v.
Sadik Hussain and Others 2, a Division Bench of this Court
considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it
provides an appeal from a 'judgment' of single Judge in exercise of
original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The previous judgment
of a Division Bench in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D.Kania 3
was considered and it was held that 'orders falling under
categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for the purpose of filing
appeals provided under the Letter Patent'. Categories (iv) and (v)
read thus:
"(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."
Lastly, the Division Bench recorded as under:
" At the cost of the repetition, it is to be noticed that the learned
Single Judge has not decided the rights and obligations of
the parties and only passed interlocutory orders and hence
in our considered view the same does not satisfy the
trappings of the judgments as defined under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent and it will be appropriate for the
appellant to file vacate petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal
is disposed of with the said observation."
(Emphasis Supplied)
2013 SCC OnLine AP 342
1981 AIR 1786
8. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal
Nanda 4, the Supreme Court held as under:
"15. 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.
16. 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
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 the
purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent."
(Emphasis Supplied)
(2006) 5 SCC 399
9. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Shyam Sel And
Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited 5 took a
similar view.
10. The Supreme Court laid down the litmus test to determine
whether order impugned is a 'judgment' within the meaning of
Letters Patent. If the present matter is examined on the anvil of
said principles, it will be clear that (i) by impugned order the
learned Single Judge has not finally decided the question or issue
in controversy in the main case, (ii) the impugned order has not
decided any issue which materially or directly affects final decision
in the Writ Petitions, (iii) the impugned order does not have any
impact on a collateral issue or question which was not subject
matter of main case.
11. We have no doubt that the learned Single Judge before
touching upon the merits of the case will deal with maintainability
of the Writ Petitions by taking into account the judgment of
Supreme Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (supra). In
our opinion, the Writ Appeals against the impugned interlocutory
order are not tenable.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282
12. With the observation mentioned hereinabove, these Writ
Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
______________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 27.02.2025
GVR
