Telangana High Court
Residents Welfare Associations vs The State Of Telangana on 1 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.520 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents
Sri Mohd Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the appellant;
Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for
respondent Nos.2 to 4; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned
Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.5 and 6
and Sri Zeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for
Pollution Control Board, for respondent No.7.
2. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the impugned
order dated 15.04.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P.No.8887 of 2025 which is interlocutory in nature.
3. If the complete relief which was claimed by the appellant,
as an interim measure, has not been granted by the learned
Single Judge, the appellant is at liberty to file appropriate fresh
application seeking interim direction from learned Single Judge
to decide the remaining portion of the interim relief considering
the urgency shown.
4. The fact remains that the impugned order is an
interlocutory order and does not fall within the ambit of 'judgment'. In
W.A.No.506 of 2025 and batch, dated 30.04.2025, it was held as
under:
"7. Admittedly, the appellants are party respondents before the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed the
impugned order without putting the appellants to notice. Thus,
the appellants can certainly file applications for vacation of the
aforesaid order. If such applications are filed, the learned Single
Judge will certainly examine the same and in that event, it
cannot be said that the order impugned passed by the learned
Single Judge has attained finality or falls within the ambit of
"judgment". Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC of
India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. ((2018) 11 SCC 722) is of no
assistance in the factual backdrop of this matter. The point
involved in this case is no more res integra. In catena of
judgments, it was held that against an interlocutory order, a
Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal can be entertained with
circumspection and upon fulfilling the requirements of certain
factors.
8. In University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar, Central
University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain
(2013 SCC OnLine AP 342), a Division Bench of the erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 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 judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v.
Jayaben D.Kania (AIR 1981 SC 1786) 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)
9. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda
((2006) 5 SCC 399), on which heavy reliance is placed, 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)
10. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Shyam Sel and
Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited ((2023) 1 SCC
634) took a similar view.
11. The Supreme Court laid down the litmus test to determine
whether the 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 Petition, (iii) the
impugned order does not have any impact on a collateral issue or
question which was not subject matter of main case."
5. In this view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is not
maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file
appropriate fresh application for grant of stay before the learned
Single Judge and mention the matter for hearing urgently
including, during summer vacation, 2025. If such a request is
made by the appellant, we have no doubt that learned Single
Judge will deal with it in accordance with law.
6. With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 01.05.2025
Note:
Issue C.C. today.
B/o.
Myk/Tsr
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Date: 01.05.2025
myk/tsr
