Attiq-Ur-Rehman vs Sh. Tahir Mehmood and others
The matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the interim orders passed by the High Court, which granted interim relief to Respondent No. 1 in a constitutional petition challenging the initiation of a fresh inquiry against him after he had allegedly stood exonerated in three previous inquiries. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court should interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the High Court granting interim relief. The Supreme Court held that it is the settled policy not to readily interfere in interim orders unless the relief granted is arbitrary, unreasonable, reflects an abuse of power, or results in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such grave illegality, abuse of process, or gross injustice in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave. The key principle laid down is that piecemeal litigation is discouraged and appellate interference in interim orders of the High Court will only occur in exceptional cases involving demonstrable perversity or gross injustice.
- Whether the Supreme Court will readily interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order granting interim relief?
- Is piecemeal adjudication of matters before the final decision of the High Court encouraged?
ORDER
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.--Respondent No. 1 through a constitutional petition challenged the initiation of inquiry against him on the charges of which he already stood exonerated in three previous inquiries. He contended before the High Court that the Chief Minister's Inspection Team has no authority to initiate the said inquiry against him. On the basis of these submissions the High Court issued notices to other side and granted interim relief to Respondent No. 1 on 3.1.2020 to the effect that no adverse orders be passed against him. The said interim relief was further extended vide order dated 4.2.2020.
2. It is the settled policy of this Court not to readily interfere in the interim orders passed by the High Court. It is desirable that the Court hearing the case finally decides the same before it is brought before this Court as piecemeal adjudication is not desirable. The only exception is when the interim relief granted by the High Court is arbitrary or unreasonable or reflects abuse of power or wanton exercise of discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice. We have examined the impugned interim order and find that it does not suffer from any grave illegality or abuse of process or gross injustice.
We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.