Supreme Court bans oral interim orders, stresses transparency in judicial proceedings

The Supreme Court condemned the Calcutta High Court's practice of granting interim orders on oral applications, deeming it reminiscent of feudal practices and forbidding it under the Constitution. The auction process for a liquor shop in Rangat, Andaman Islands was disrupted by a status quo order from the Calcutta High Court, leading to a flawed procedure and a subsequent direction for a fresh auction. Doubts regarding the authenticity of parties involved were raised, prompting the Supreme Court to withdraw additional demands and initiate contempt proceedings. The Court stressed the importance of written records and transparency in judicial proceedings, ultimately allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the Calcutta High Court's practice of granting interim orders on oral applications.
2. Validity of the auction process for the liquor shop at Rangat, Andaman Islands.
3. Compliance and consequences of the Calcutta High Court's orders.
4. Responsibility and authenticity of the parties involved in the Calcutta High Court proceedings.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Calcutta High Court's practice of granting interim orders on oral applications:

The Supreme Court condemned the practice followed by the Calcutta High Court of granting interim orders on oral applications without any written record. The Court stated, "It is a practice to be strongly deprecated, a practice reminiscent of the feudal days when the French nobility could procure a lettre de cachet under the Sovereign's seal authorizing a subject's imprisonment without trial and without mention of any reason." The Court emphasized that such a practice is "unhealthy and likely to lead to harm and abuse" and forbade it under Art. 141 of the Constitution.

2. Validity of the auction process for the liquor shop at Rangat, Andaman Islands:

An auction for the right to sell liquor at Rangat was held on 28.3.1984, where M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs. 25 lakhs. The auction was confirmed, and the license was to be effective from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985. However, an ex-parte order from the Calcutta High Court directed the maintenance of status quo, which affected the confirmation of the auction.

3. Compliance and consequences of the Calcutta High Court's orders:

The Calcutta High Court's order was made on an oral application without any written petition, leading to a status quo order affecting the auction. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court later set aside the auction and directed a fresh auction with a reserved price of Rs. 30 lakhs. The Supreme Court found the procedure adopted by the Calcutta High Court to be flawed, emphasizing the need for open court proceedings and written records to ensure transparency and fairness.

4. Responsibility and authenticity of the parties involved in the Calcutta High Court proceedings:

The Supreme Court noted that the person who moved the application in the Calcutta High Court, claiming to be S. Samuel, was of doubtful existence. An affidavit by S. Samuel disclaimed any instruction to file a writ petition, raising questions about the authenticity of the proceedings. The Court issued notices to various parties, including advocates involved, to explain their actions. The Supreme Court directed the withdrawal of the demand for additional payment from M/s Samarias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and allowed the appeal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the withdrawal of the additional demand and issuing notices for contempt proceedings against George Joseph for breaching an undertaking. The Court emphasized the need for written records and open court proceedings to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

---