Working-hours notice under Rule 26 required for interim relief; ex parte order recalled after sufficient cause for non-appearance was found.

Rule 26's 48 hours' prior notice was interpreted with Rule 28 to require 48 working hours, because the object of the provision is to give the respondent a real chance to seek instructions and contest ad interim relief; weekends and office holidays are not meaningful time for that purpose. On the facts, notice served on Friday afternoon left no effective opportunity to appear before the ex parte interim order was made, so the respondent's non-appearance was held to be for sufficient cause. The ex parte interim order was recalled, leaving the parties free to seek fresh interim relief before the regular Bench in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 48 hours' prior notice required under Rule 26 means working hours or merely numerical hours; (ii) whether the applicant showed sufficient cause for non-appearance when the ex parte interim order was passed.

Issue (i): Whether the 48 hours' prior notice required under Rule 26 means working hours or merely numerical hours.

Analysis: Rule 26 was read with Rule 28 to ascertain its purpose, namely, to afford a reasonable opportunity to the affected respondent to contest an ad interim prayer. The Court held that the notice period is intended to enable the respondent to seek instructions and take steps in the ordinary course of business. Where Saturdays and Sundays are declared holidays in Government offices, they cannot effectively be treated as available time for collecting instructions or papers. A purely numerical computation of 48 hours was held to be impractical and inconsistent with the object of the rule.

Conclusion: The 48 hours' prior notice under Rule 26 means 48 working hours, not merely numerical hours.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause for non-appearance when the ex parte interim order was passed.

Analysis: The notice had been served on Friday afternoon, with the intervening days being holidays, and the departmental movement of papers showed prompt action on the first working day. The facts were not disputed in substance, and the Court found that the respondent had not been afforded a real opportunity to obtain instructions and appear. On that basis, the Court accepted that the non-appearance was attributable to short notice and constituted sufficient cause.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established for non-appearance.

Final Conclusion: The ex parte interim order was recalled, and the parties were left at liberty to seek fresh interim relief before the regular Bench in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural rule requiring prior notice is intended to secure a real opportunity to contest interim relief, the notice period must be interpreted in a manner that makes that opportunity effective, and an ex parte order passed on short notice may be recalled on proof of sufficient cause.

---