2026 (3) TMI 1055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e therewith; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 4. A parting observation, however, seems to be necessary considering the contents of the order of which contempt was alleged. The High Court, by its order dated 8th September 2025, allowed the petitioner to withdraw his writ petition because a remedy of revision under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906 was available against the order under challenge, which he did not pursue. However, to facilitate the revisional forum to be approached by the petitioner, the High Court directed that no coercive steps were to be taken and stayed the implementation of the order under challenge till 30th September, 2025. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng for the bench in Madan Gopal Rungta (supra) had ruled: 13. ... the existence of the rights is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under this article. The judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal, however, shows that the Judges have decided nothing at all in respect of the rights of the parties. Indeed they have expressly stated that their observations should not in any way be considered as deciding any of the rights or contentions of the parties raised in the petitions. The whole judgment shows that because of the requirement of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code the present respondents could not file a suit against the Government for at least sixty days, the respondent's position should not in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant it was urged that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such orders under Article 226 under the circumstances of the case. This is not a case where the Court before finally disposing of a petition under Article 226 gave directions in the nature of interim relief for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. The question which we have to determine is whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under Article 226, when the Court expressly stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a like nature could be issued. 15. In our opinion, Article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final reli....