In a significant judgment that underscores the importance of procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 5404 of 2024, set aside an interim order of the Allahabad High Court that dispossessed the appellant, Abhay Pratap Singh, from his property without a specific prayer in the writ petition. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, who highlighted the impropriety of such actions under writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Respondent No. 15 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The petitioner sought multiple directions, including the protection of life, liberty, and property, and actions under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against certain private parties. However, notably absent was a prayer for dispossession of the appellant from the disputed property.
The High Court, through an interim order, directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central Zone), Lucknow to dispossess the appellant and place the petitioner (Respondent No. 15) in possession of the property. This order was implemented, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Authority to Order Dispossession in Writ Jurisdiction
The primary question was whether the High Court could order dispossession through an interim order in a writ petition under Article 226, particularly when there was no explicit prayer for such relief.
2. Alleged Alteration of Status Quo
The appellant contended that Respondent No. 15 violated the Supreme Court’s status quo order by undertaking construction activities on the disputed property.
3. Scope of Interim Relief
The case also touched upon the broader principles of procedural propriety and the limitations of interim relief under constitutional jurisdiction.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court’s interim order. It directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to take possession of the property and restore it to the appellant within four weeks. The Court permitted Respondent No. 15 to amend the pending declaratory suit to include a prayer for possession and seek appropriate interim relief.
Observations by the Court
1. On Interim Dispossession:
The bench observed:
“In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by an interim order, the appellant could not have been dispossessed, especially when there was no prayer for dispossession in the writ petition.”
2. Preservation of Status Quo:
Highlighting the importance of procedural fairness, the Court directed that the appellant maintain status quo for three months after being restored possession, to allow Respondent No. 15 to pursue legal remedies.
3. Adjudication on Merits:
The bench clarified:
“We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the issue of title and other issues which are subject matter of the pending suit.”
Representation and Parties
– Appellant (Abhay Pratap Singh): Represented by Senior Advocate Pradeep Kant, with Advocates Rohit Kumar Singh, Shubham Kumar, Ketan Priyadarshee, and Vidushi Srivastava.
– Respondents: Represented by Advocate Shaurya Sahay, assisted by Advocates Divyanshu Sahay and Aditya Kumar.
