(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016.)
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Challenge in this writ appeal, is to an order, made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016, dated 05.01.2016.
2. W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016. has been filed. for the following relief:-
''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 in Na.Ka.No.3526/AA5/2015 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequentially approve the representatives nominated by the petitioner society through its representation dated 29.06.2015 as members of the school committee of Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nilakottai.''
3. W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016, have been filed, for the following relief:-
''Prayer in W.M.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 : To pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from approving any appointments made by third respondent trust and the respondents 4 to 7 in Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nilakottai, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Prayer in W.M.P(MD)No.24 of 2016 : To pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from approving the representatives nominated by the third respondent trust and the respondents 4 to 8 as members of the school committee Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nilakottai, pending disposal of the writ petition.''
4. At the time, when the matter came up for admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, vide common order, dated 05.01.2016, in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016, the Writ Court passed the following order:-
''The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order proceeds as if the third respondent Trust has been administering the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai, Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School for the past 50 years, while the third respondent Trust came into existence by trust deed dated 23.12.2011, which is annexed in page No.20 of the typed set of papers. However, according to the petitioner, the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nilakottai which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 is administering the said school and the office bearers are elected for the society and form VII is filed by the said society with the concerned Registrar of Societies. Under these circumstances there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for.''
5. Material on record discloses that being aggrieved against the said order, appellants 3 to 7/respondents 3 to 7 in the writ petition, have filed vacate stay petition on 18.01.2016. Material on record also discloses that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents.
6. Contending inter alia that the common order made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016, granting an interim injunction, ''as prayed for'', at the time of admission of the writ petition, is violative of principles of natural justice, the present writ appeal has been filed.
7. Added further, inviting the attention of this Court, to the last sentence of the impugned common order, made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016, namely, ''Under these circumstances there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for.'' Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submitted that without there being an opportunity, the Writ Court has granted the main relief in the abovesaid petitions. The impugned order is assailed on merits also. On the said aspects, he seeks for interference.
8. Per contra, Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/1st respondent in this appeal, submitted that when the vacate stay petition, filed against the common order, made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016 dated 05.01.2016, is still pending, the present writ appeal is not maintainable. According to him, in the absence of filing two separate appeals, as against the common order, made in W.M.P(MD)Nos.23 and 24 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.23 of 2016, dated 05.01.2016, the present appeal, is not maintainable, on the principles of constructive res judicata. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
9. We have already extracted the prayer sought for, in the miscellaneous petitions. The writ petitioner has sought for an interim injunction, till the disposal of the writ petition. Inasmuch as, the Writ Court has used the words, ''interim injunction as prayed for'', construing the same, as final order in the abovesaid miscellaneous petitions, the appellants have filed the present appeal. Firstly, interim order granted cannot be challenged by way of appeal.
10. 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 ex parte orders without resorting to the normal course of approaching the court which passed such orders and seeking appropriate 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 abovesaid decision 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.
11. There is some force in the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that impugned orders convey the meaning. Prayer sought for in the injunction petitions is granted, till the disposal of the writ petition. 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.