M/S Ofb Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Chaitanya Energy Private Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 1474 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S Ofb Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Chaitanya Energy Private Limited on 29 January, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                       WRIT APPEAL No.696 of 2024

     JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):

Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for the appellant;

Ms. Vaishnavi Ambadipudi, learned counsel represents M/s. R.S.

Associates, for respondent No.1/writ petitioner and Ms. Alka

Thakur, learned counsel represents Ms. V. Dyumani, learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, by placing reliance on

paragraph No.26(d) of the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 in

W.P.No.28781 of 2023, submits that the learned Single Judge in no

uncertain terms made it clear that the writ petitioner is not entitled

for any relief and interim order granted on 12.10.2023 was directed

to be vacated. However, in paragraph No.27 of the impugned order,

learned Single Judge again continued the interim order for a period

of four weeks to enable the writ petitioner to avail the alternative

remedy. The challenge is confined to the extent of paragraph No.27

of the impugned order whereby interim relief was continued. He

submits that the period of four weeks granted by the writ court is,

even otherwise, over and the protection given in paragraph No.27

runs contrary to the finding given in paragraph No.26(d) of the

impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner supported the

impugned order.

5. A conjoint reading of paragraph Nos.26(d) and 27 of the

impugned order shows that both contain mutually inconsistent

findings. In paragraph No.26(d), it was opined that the writ

petitioner is not entitled for any relief and ad interim order dated

12.10.2023 was vacated. Whereas in paragraph No.27 of the

impugned order, for a period of four weeks, the ad interim order was

continued.

6. The Apex Court in Kalabharathi Advertising v. Hemant

Vimalnath Narichania 1 opined that if High Court is not

entertaining the writ petition and relegating the petitioner to avail

alternative remedy, it is not proper to grant interim relief for

interregnum period. Relevant para reads thus:

"22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024: AIR 1952 SC 12], Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC

(2010) 9 SCC 437

1305], State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [AIR 1964 SC 685], State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh "Balak" [AIR 1966 SC 1441 : 1966 Cri LJ 1076] and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70 : AIR 1975 SC 2238])."

7. In this view of the matter, paragraph No.27 of the impugned

order of the learned Single Judge cannot sustain judicial scrutiny

and is accordingly set aside.

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

____________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 29.01.2025 Myk/Tsr