ABHIMANYOO RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

                             [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1


                            ABHIMANYOO RAM                               A
                                    v.
                         STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 7211 of 2008)
                            NOVEMBER 21, 2008
                                                                         B
            [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

           Interim order:

              Selection - To post. of Medical Officer - Plea by c
             el/ant-writ petitioner for dismissal of writ petition as not
          ressed, after getting relief under interim order - High Court
        while dismissing the writ petition as not pressed, vacated the
        interim order and directed the State Authority to revoke
        selection of appellant, in case he had been selected/ D
        appointed because of participation in the process of selection
        under the interim order - Direction challenged - Held: Courts
...     should bestow caution while dismissing cases where interim
        relief had been granted, as not pressed or as withdrawn -
        Any attempt by a litigant to retain benefit of interim order by
                                                                          E
        avoiding final adjudication, requires to be deprecated -
        However, Court cannot assume, that in every case where a
      . request for withdrawal is made, the request is a dishonest
        attempt to avoid adjudication after securing benefit of interim
       order - If Court fails to inform the petitioner about the
        consequential directions proposed while dismissing the F
       petition as not pressed, before making the order, there is
       every likelihood of the petitioner being denied the choic~ of
       proceeding with the case - On facts, appellant was not put
       on notice about the consequential direction to be issued on
       acceptance of his request for withdrawal, nor given the option G
       of continuing with the case, if he did not want dismissal of his
~
       petition with any added directions - To that extent there was ·
        violation of a facet of principles of natural justice<- Hence,
        writ petition filed by appellant restored to file..of High Court,
                                         1                                H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 17 S.C.R.


A   with permission to appellant to pursue it in accordance with
    law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226 - Principle of
    natural justice - Requirement of fairness to litigant.

         Appellant was enrolled/registered with the Board of
    Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh. He got his name deleted
8
    from the State Register of Indian Medicine so as to enroll
    himself in another State but later again sought re-
    enrolment in Uttar Pradesh which was granted wi
    prospective effect. Since appellant was denied inte
    for selection by the respondents to the post of M ·
C   Officer, as his re-enrolment did not fulfil the eUgi
    requirements, he wanted his registration to J;>e restor"°.
    with retrospective effect from the date of original
    enrolment and filed a writ petition before the High Court
    seeking a direction to respondents to call him for
D   interview for the post of Medical Officer. In the said writ
    petition, an interim order was granted permitting appellant
    to appear in such interview. By making use of the said
    interim order, appellant secured an order from the Board
    of Indian Medicine, UP, restoring his enrolment from the
E   date of initial registration. Consequently, appellant was
    called for the interview· whereafter, he moved the Court
    for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed.

         The High Court while dismissing the writ petition as
F   not pressed, vacated its interim order and directed the
    Stat~ Authority to revoke selection of appellant, in case
    he had been selected/appointed because of participation
    in the process of selection under the interim order.      ·

       In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
G when he made a submission that he did not wish to
  press the writ petition, he bonafide thought that the Court
  would merely pass an order simplicitor dismissing the            ~
  petition as not pressed. He contended that had he known
  that any conditions or directions detrimental to his
H interest would be added to the order, while dismissing his
         ABHIMANYOO RAM v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                3


    petition as not pressed, he would not have sought A
    dismissal of the writ petition.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD:1.1. The assumption of the appellant that the
    High Court made ·unwanted or unwarranted observation            B
    or issued any direction which was uncalled for, while
    dismissing his petition as not pressed, is not correct.
~   [Para 4] [7-H]

         1.2. The High Court merely spelt out expressly, the c
    consequences of the dismissal of the writ petition. Such
    explicit directions have become necessary to check a
    raising trend among litigants to secure the relief as an
    interim measure, and then avoid adjudication on merits,
    particularly in matters relating to examinations and 0
    recruitment. [Para 4] (8-A-B]

         1.3. Any attempt by a litigant to retain the benefit of
    the interim order by avoiding final adjudication, requires
    to be deprecated. In fact, it requires to be dealt with
    sternly. Courts should bestow caution while dismissing          E
    cases where interim relief had been granted, as not
    pressed or as withdrawn. The courts cannot proceed on
    the assumption that all concerned would know about the
    legal consequences of dismissal and therefore, it is not
    necessary to make any order in regard to the interim            F
    relief already granted. Even though the legal effect of
    dismissal on withdrawal, is vacation of the interim order,
    the concerned respondents not being aware of the legal
    consequences, will not take consequential action but
    continue the benefit extended to the petitioner by the          G
    interim order, unless there is a sp'ecific direction spelling
    out the consequences. Sometimes, the concerned
    departmental officials, on account of collusion with the
    petitioners who had obtained the interim relief, will not
    withdraw or reverse... the benefit granted to the petitioner    H
   ·4        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2008] 17 S.C.R.


A in pursuance of the interim order, when the petition is
   withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed. Therefore,
   appropriate consequential directions cancelling · or
   vacating the interim order should be passed so as to
   restore status quo ante. In cases where the prayer for
B dismissal (as not pressed or withdrawn) is made even
  ·before the respondent is served, then the order vacating
   the interim order should be communicated to the
   authority against whom the interim order was issued, so
   that any benefit extended as a consequence of the interim
c order, can be withdrawn or reversed. The only exception
   is where the respondents agr,ee for the continuance of
   the interim order as a final relief, or agree that the benefit
   of the interim order already granted need not ~e
   disturbed, in which event, the court should record such
   submission and pass appropriate consequential orders.
0
   [Para 5] [8-F-H; 9-A-D]
        2.1. Though the High Court took care to issue
  .appropriate consequential directions by vacating the
   interim order and the directions are not unwarranted
E additions and in the usual course ·such an order would
   not have called for interference, but there is need to
   interfere with the order in the present case. [Para 6] (9-E]

         2.2. Fairness to .the litigant requires that the court,
F when a request for dismissal is made, should inform or
    indicate to the petitioner or his counsel that as a
    consequence of such dismissal, the benefit of the 'interim
    relief already granted will be revoked or withdrawn. It is
    possible that a litigant may make a prayer for withdrawal
G without any-ulterior design or motive, and that he would
  . not have-sought dismissal of the petition at all, if he had
    known that the benefit of the interim order will be
    withdrawn as a consequence of the dismissal. The Court
    cannot assume, that in every case wtlere a request for
    withdrawal is made, the request is· a dishonest attempt
H
                 ABHIMANYOO RAM v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                5


            to avoid adjudication after securing the benefit of an A
            interim order. If the court fails to inform the petitioner
            about the consequential directions proposed while
            dismissing the petition as not pressed, before making the
            order, there is every likelihood of the petitioner being
            denied the choice of proceeding with the case. In law, no B
            doubt, a party withdrawing or not pressing a petition, is
            presumed to ~now the legal consequences thereof. His
 ·'-(..__   counsel is also expected to advise him. But it does. not
            follow that the court need not inform the petitioner about
            the consequential directions which it proposes to issue, c
            when dismissing a case on his request. [Para 6] (9-F-H;
            10-A-B]
                 2.3. The appellant was not put on notice about the
            consequential direction to be issued on acceptance of the
            request for withdrawal, nor given the option of continuing D
            with the case, if he did not want dismissal of his petition
 +          with any added directions. To that extent it can be said
            that there has been violation of a facet of principles of
            natural justice. [Para 7] (10-C-D]

                 2.4. The order of the High Court is accordingly set
                                                                            E   .
            aside and the writ petition is resiored to the file of the High
            Court, with permission to the Appellaht tQ pursue the writ
            petition in accordance with la~. [Par~ 8] (10-0-E] .
                                                   ~ ~·



                                                                           F
 '              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
            7211 of 2008.

                From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2008 of the
            High Court of Judicature in Civil Writ Petition No. 53286 of
            2007.                                                        G

'r               Aftab Ali Khan, Anjum Ahmed and Zaki Ahmed Khan for
            the Appellant.

                The Order of the Court was delivered by
                                                                           H
    6           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 17 S.C.R.


A                                 ORDER
         R.V~    RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. The
    respondents though served, remain unrepresented.

       2. The appellant was enrolled/registered with the Board
B of Indian Medi'cine, Uttar Pradesh on 23.7.2003. He got his
  name deleted from the State Register of Indian Medicine so
  as to enroll himself in another State. He again sought re-
  enrolment in Uttar Pradesh which was granted with prospective
  effect from 23.8.2007. He was denied interview for selection
C by the respondents to the post of Medical Officer, as his re-
  enrolment did not fulfil the eligibilitY requirements. He therefore
  wanted his registration to be restored with retrospective effect
  from the date of original enrolment. He filed a writ petition
  before the Alla,habad High Court seeking a direction to
o respondents to call him for interview for the post of Medical
  Officer (Ayurved/Unani). In the said petition, an interim order
  was granted on 31.10.2007, permitting him to appear in such             +
  interview. By making use of the said interim order, he secured
  an order from the Board of Indian Medicine, UP, restoring his
E enrolment from the date of initial registration. Consequently, he
  was called for the interview. Thereafter, he moved the court for
                of
  dismissal the writ petition as not pressed. The High Court,
  on 25.2.2008, accordingly dismissed the writ petition by the
  following order:
F        "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner
         is not interested in pursuing this writ petition and the same
         may be dismissed as not pressed.

        · In view of the statement so made by the learned GQunsel
G         for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as not
          pressed. Interim Order, granted by this Court dated 31st
          October, 2007 stands discharged.

         If the petitioner has participated in the process of selection
         because of the said interim order granted in his favour by
H
     ABHIMANYOO RAM v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                     7
             [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

     this Court in this writ petition and ultimately he has been     A
     selected, it goes without saying that such participation in
     the process of selection by the petitioner would be
     rendered illegal, inasmuch as the interim order of this Court
     dated 31st October, 2007 stands merged in the final order
     of this Court, where under this writ petition has been          B
     dismissed. Petitioner cannot be permitted to draw the
     benefit from the interim order granted by this Court dated
     31st October, 2007.

     State authority is directed to take appropriate action in the
     matter and to ensure that in case the petitioner had been C
     selected/appointed because of participation in the
     process of selection under the interim order of this Court
     dated 31st October, 2007, suitable orders revoking the
     selection/appointment of the petitioner shall be issued.
                                                                     D
     This order may be communicated to respondent no.1 i.e.
     Secretary, Karmik, Government of UP; Lucknow by the
     learned Statnding Counsel within one week."

                                            [emphasis supplied]      E
      3. The appellant is aggrieved by the observation in the said
order that he cannot draw benefit from the interim order and
the direction for revocation of the selection, if any, made in
pursuant of the interim order. The appellant claims that when
he made a submission that he did not wish to press the writ F
petition, he bona fide thought that the court would merely pass
an order simplicitor dismissing the petition as not pressed. The
appellant submits that had he known that any conditions or
directions detrimental to his interest would be added to the
order, while dismissing the petition as not pressed, he would G
not have sought dismissal of the writ petition.

     4. The assumption of the appellant that the High Court has
made any unwanted or unwarranted observation or issued any
direction which is uncalled for, while dismissing his petition as
                                                                     H
    8         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 17 S.C.R.


A   !lOt pressed, is not correct. The High Court has merely spelt
  . out expressly, the consequences of the qismissal of the writ
    petition. Such explicit directions have become necessary to
    check a raising trend among litigants to secure the relief as an
    interim me.asure, and then avoid adjudication on merits,
B particularly in matters relating to examinations and recruitment.
    The modus operandi adopted in such matters is as follows: The
    litigant approaches the court in the last minute for relief with an
    interim prayer. He persuades the court to grant the interim relief
    by highlighting the urgency, irreparable loss and balance of
c   convenience. He obtains interim relief and secures the desired
    ~enefit with the help of such interim order. Once the purpose
    of securing the interim order is achieved (particularly where the
    interim order granted is the same as the final relief prayed), he
    makes an innocuous submission to the court that he does not
    want to press the petition and gets the matter disposed of,
0
    thereby achieving the goal of securing relief without
    adjudication. He takes advantage of the fact that invariably
    courts do not spell out the'consequences, when dismissing the
    petitions as not pressed. The result is that in many cases, a
    litigant who would not get the relief on detailed scrutiny of his
E claim during a contested final hearing, gets away with
    undeserved relief secured by way of an interim order.

        5. Any attempt by a litigant to retain the benefit of the
  interim order by avoiding final adjudication, requires to be
F deprecated. In fact, it requires to be dealt with sternly. Courts
  should bestow caution while dismissing cases where interim
  relief had been granted, as not pressed or as withdrawn. The
  courts cannot proceed on the assumption that all concerned
  would know about the legal consequences of dismissal and
G therefore, it is not necessary to make any order in regard to
  the interim relief already granted. Even though the legal effect
  of dismissal on withdrawal, is vacation of the interim order, the
  concerned respondents not being aware of the legal
  consequences, will not take consequential action but continue
H the benefit extended to the petitioner , ~y the interim order, unless
                      ABHIMANYOO RAM v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.                       9
                              [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

                there is a specific direction spelling out the consequences.           A
           -1   Sometimes, the concerned departmental officials, on account
                of collusion with the petitioners who had obtained the interim
                relief, will not withdraw or reverse the benefit granted to the
                petitioner in pursuance of the interim order, when the petition
                is withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed. Therefore,                   B
                appropriate consequential directions cancelling or vacating the
                interim order should be passed so as to restore status quo
                ante. In cases where the prayer for dismissal (as not pressed
       """      or withdrawn) is made even before the respondent is served,
                then the order vacating the interim order should be
                                                                                       c
                communicated to the authority against whom the interim order
                was issued, so that any benefit extended as a consequence
                of the interim order, can be withdrawn or reversed . The only
                exception is where the respondents agree for the continuance
                of the interim order as a final relief, or agree that the benefit of
                the interim order already granted need not be disturbed, in
                                                                                       D
                which event, the court should record such submission and pass
                appropriate consequential orders.

                      6. In this case, the High Court has taken care to issue
                appropriate consequential directions by vacating the interim           E
                order. The directions are not unwarranted additions. In the usual
                course such an order would not have called for interference. But
                there is need to interfere with the order. Fairness to the litigant
                requires that the court, when a request for dismissal is made,
                should inform or indicate to the petitioner or his counsel that        F
     .,.        as a consequence of such dismissal, the benefit of the interim
                relief already granted will be revoked or withdrawn. It is possible
                that a litigant may make a prayer for withdrawal without any
                ulterior design or motive, and that he would not have sought
                dismissal of the petition at all, if he had known that the benefit     G
                of the interim order will be withdrawn as a consequence of the
                dismissal. The Court cannot assume, that in every case where
    'lr·
                a request for withdrawal is made, the request is a dishonest
I
                attempt to avoid adjudication after securing the benefit of an
                interim order. If the court fails to inform the petitioner about the
"                                                                                      H
    10         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 17 S.C.R.


A   consequential directions proposed while dismissing the petition
    as not pressed, before making the order, there is every
    likelihood of the petitioner being denied the choice of
    proceeding with the case. In law, no doubt, a party withdrawing
    or. not pressing a pet.ition, is presumed to know the legal
B . consequences thereof. His counsel is also expected to advice
    him. But it does not follow that: the court need not inform the
    petitioner about the consequential directions which it proposes
    to issue; wh~n dismissing a case on his request.

       7. In this case, the appellant was not put on notice about
C the consequential direction to be issued on acceptance of the
  request for withdrawal, nor given the option of continuing with
  the case, if he did ne>t. want dismissal of his petition with any
  added directions. To that extent it can be said that there has
  been violation of a facet of principles of natural justice.
D
         8. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the order
    dated 25.2.2008 of the High Court and restore the writ petition
    to the file of the High Court, with permission to the Appellant to
    pursue the1writ petition in accordance with law.
E ·s.B.B.                                         · Appeal allowed.