The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Subhash Chander Bhambhu and others challenging the rejection of an interim stay application by the Single Judge in a pending writ petition. The Division Bench observed that the appeal was a gross misuse of the legal process and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the appellants.
Case Background
The appellants had filed a writ petition challenging two administrative orders dated 19.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 related to promotional exercises from the post of Block Education Officer to Deputy District Education Officer and District Education Officer. During the pendency of the writ petition, they moved an application seeking an interim stay on the operation of the said orders and sought to restrain the respondent authorities from carrying out the promotions.
The learned Single Judge, having issued notice of motion on 07.03.2025 and awaiting the respondents’ reply, declined to entertain the interim application at that stage. The appellants then preferred the present LPA challenging the refusal to grant interim relief.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench expressed concern over the increasing trend of filing LPAs against interim or procedural orders in writ petitions, terming such appeals as “gross abuse and misuse of the process of law.”
The Court held:
“We are of the firm view that once the Court issues notice of motion, any orders to be passed of urgent nature can be in respect of any order which the respondents may issue after the notice of motion has been issued. However, for the orders which are under challenge and the Court has issued notice of motion, it is always appropriate to receive response/reply from the respondents and then examine the prayer for interim stay.”
The Bench found no fault in the course adopted by the Single Judge in deferring consideration of the stay application until a reply was received from the respondents.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the LPA with costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Authority. It emphasized the need to discourage the tendency of filing misconceived LPAs and held:
“Suffice it to note that the present appeal is in gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and accordingly the same is dismissed with costs…”
All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Subhash Chander Bhambhu and Others v. State of Haryana
Case No.: LPA-1049-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta
