UTTAR PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS Vs. ARUN KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 3831 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 07, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.3831 OF 2017
          [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.1773 OF 2017]


UTTAR PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.                                    APPELLANT(S)


                                VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.                                     RESPONDENT(S)

                                    WITH
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3832 OF 2017
          [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2941 OF 2017]
                                      &
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.3833  OF 2017
         [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.37981 OF 2016]


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

      Leave granted.
2.    The appellants are before us, aggrieved by the  interim  order  passed
by the High Court dated 19.12.2016  passed  in  Writ  Petition  No.28986  of
2016.
3.    As we propose to  remit  the  matter  to  the  writ  court  for  final
disposal, it is not proper  or  necessary  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the
matter.  Suffice to  note  that  this  Court  after  hearing  the  arguments
extensively, on 21.02.2017, passed the following order:-
      “It is not in dispute that Mr. A.K. Mishra, the petitioner  in  SLP(C)
No.37981 of 2016, is in charge only in respect of nine revenue divisions  as
of now.  As far as the  remaining  nine  revenue  divisions  are  concerned,
without prejudice to the contentions available to either side, for the  time
being, the duties assigned to the 8th Respondent may  be  discharged  either
by the Managing Director or by the Joint Managing  Director,  until  further
orders.
      List on 01.03.2017 for further hearing.”

4.    The said order will stand substituted in the place  of  interim  order
passed by the High Court.
5.     We  request  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the   writ   petition
expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from  the  date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6.    Needless to say that the High Court will dispose of the writ  petition
untrammeled by any of the observations or  findings  rendered  by  the  High
Court in the interim order.  All contentions of the parties are  left  open,
including the contention on maintainability of the writ  petition,  in  view
of the order passed by this  Court  in  C.A.  No.11151/2016  on  23.11.2016.
Till the writ petition is disposed of, the  interim  order  passed  by  this
Court will continue to operate.
7.    We also make it clear that we have not considered the  merits  of  the
matter and it is entirely  for  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the  writ
petition on its own merits.
8.    The appeals are disposed of, as above.
9.    Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
10.   There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                              [R. BANUMATHI]
      NEW DELHI;
      MARCH 07, 2017.