High Court extends interim relief, awaits Apex Court clarification on conflicting interpretations.

The High Court decided to continue the ad-interim relief granted earlier until further orders following the Apex Court's decision to refer the issue to a Bench of three Judges for clarification. The High Court emphasized the importance of awaiting clarification from the higher authority due to conflicting interpretations by different High Courts. The case was adjourned pending the Apex Court's decision, with the High Court granting liberty to respondents to move matters after the Apex Court's decision in listed cases.

---

---

Issues:
Ad-interim relief continuation based on divergent views among High Courts, challenge to High Court order in Apex Court, clarification needed by Apex Court, consideration of Telangana High Court judgment.

Analysis:
The High Court was dealing with petitions where ad-interim relief was granted and challenged by respondent No.1, citing an order from the Apex Court. The Apex Court noted the divergent views among different High Courts on the matter and decided to clarify the legal position. The Apex Court specifically mentioned the High Court's order granting protection to the petitioners and expressed no inclination to interfere with it. However, the Apex Court highlighted a conflicting view taken by the High Court of Telangana in a similar matter. Consequently, the Apex Court listed the connected matters, including the present case, before a Bench of three Judges for resolution.

In light of the Apex Court's decision to refer the issue to a Bench of three Judges for clarification, the High Court decided to continue the ad-interim relief granted earlier until further orders. The High Court granted liberty to the respondents to move the matters after the Apex Court's decision in the listed cases, emphasizing the importance of awaiting the clarification from the higher authority. The case was adjourned to 26th August, 2019, pending the decision of the Apex Court on the matter. The High Court's decision to maintain the status quo was based on the need for a comprehensive resolution by the Apex Court due to conflicting interpretations by different High Courts.

---