Full Judgment
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.
1. This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P., against the judgment dated 10.1.2001 of the Hon'ble single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48654 of 2000, wherein his lordship has taken a general view on the question as to whether application for extension of time bound interim orders is necessary or whether it must be heard by the same Judge or it could be heard by another Judge, who is seized of the jurisdiction as a result of rotation of Bench and has held that no order is required to be passed as time bound interim order. If case is not taken up and if the petitioner applies for question answer from the office to find out whether his application was pending and interim order was continuing even after expiry of time mentioned in the order, the answer be given by the office in the affirmative.
2. Having heard learned standing counsel we are of the view that the judgment under appeal is not sustainable in law.
3. In Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. : 2007 (3) SCC 470 : 2007 (2) AWC 1971 (SC), the Apex Court said : 'There is no warrant for the proposition, as was stated by the High Court that unless an order of stay passed once even for the limited period is vacated by an express order or otherwise; the same would continue to operate. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot sustain, which is set aside accordingly.'
4. Similarly, in the case of Arjan Singh v. Punit Ahluwalia and Ors. : 2008 (8) SCC 348 : 2008 (4) AWC 3352 (SC), it was held that 'We agree with the High Court on this issue. If the order of injunction was operative up to a particular date, technically the order of injunction shall not remain operative thereafter'. In the case of Arjan Singh injunction order was passed for a limited period and thereafter it could not be extended since on the date fixed the Presiding Officer was on leave and later on the case having been transferred to another Court the interim order was neither extended nor vacated despite the fact that even extension application was pending. The High Court took the view that once no order of extension of the interim order was passed and interim order was operating till particular date it would not continue automatically and would cease on the date on which it was granted. This view of the High Court was affirmed by the Apex Court.
5. The aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court squarely apply here also. It cannot be said that an interim order passed for a limited period would continue automatically if for one or the other reason the case could not be taken up by the Court. If Court has passed interim order for a limited period, unless that order is extended, it would not continue automatically. The view taken by the Hon'ble single Judge is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed above and, therefore, cannot sustain.
6. So far as the question as to which Judge shall hear the matter; suffice it to mention that the case has to be placed as per the determination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, under the Rules of the Court, unless the case is part heard or tied up, specifically mentioned in the order or appears by necessary implication from the language of the order. Mere passing of an interim order will not make the said case tied up or part heard with the Bench of Hon'ble Judge and the application for vacation of such an interim order can be listed before the Bench, which is assigned jurisdiction of such matters by Hon'ble Chief Justice.
7. The special appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 10.1.2001 of the Hon'ble singe Judge is accordingly set aside.