Writ appeal maintainable after partial relief, with refund required when appellate proceedings fail for lack of jurisdiction.

A writ appeal is maintainable where the Single Judge grants only part of the relief and leaves the remaining claim, including refund, undecided. The appeal cannot be rejected merely because the writ petition was partly allowed. Where an appellate authority dismisses an appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is non est and any deposits made under the stay or appeal conditions cannot be retained. Refund of those amounts follows as consequential relief, while the statutory revision remedy remains open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ appeal was maintainable when the writ petition had been allowed only in part and the appellant sought additional reliefs; (ii) whether the amounts deposited by the appellant in the appeal proceedings were liable to be refunded after the appellate authority dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction / non-maintainability.

Issue (i): Whether the writ appeal was maintainable when the writ petition had been allowed only in part and the appellant sought additional reliefs.

Analysis: The relief granted by the Single Judge did not dispose of the entire writ petition. Only part of the reliefs had been allowed, while the claim for refund of the deposited amount had not been granted. An order that grants relief only in part leaves the unsuccessful portion open for challenge, and the appeal cannot be rejected merely because the writ petition was generally allowed.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the amounts deposited by the appellant in the appeal proceedings were liable to be refunded after the appellate authority dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction / non-maintainability.

Analysis: The appellate authority had declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that the subject matter itself was outside its appellate jurisdiction. Once the authority held that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the dismissal was not on merits but on jurisdictional grounds. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, and deposits made pursuant to such an order cannot be retained. The refund of the amounts paid under the stay and appeal conditions was therefore a consequential and necessary relief.

Conclusion: The deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part by affirming maintainability and granting consequential refund relief, while leaving the revision remedy open for the appellant before the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority dismisses a matter for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is non est and any amounts collected pursuant to the jurisdictionally defective proceedings must be returned as consequential relief.

---