ASGHAR ALI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Another
This petition challenged an interim order issued by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court during the pendency of a writ petition. The interim order, which confirmed a stay in favour of the Forest Department, contained strong observations stating that the petitioner had no right to the land in question, and that the Forest Department was its full owner. The petitioner contended that these observations amounted to a practical acceptance of the writ petition, making further proceedings a mere formality, and thus sought to challenge the interim order. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, holding that the writ petition was still pending and the observations, despite their strong language, were of a tentative nature and did not constitute a final determination of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as premature, affirming that the High Court still had to finally decide the matter.
- Can strong observations made in an interim order be challenged before the final decision of the main case?
- Do observations in an interim order, however strongly worded, constitute a final determination of the case?
- Is a petition challenging an interim order premature if the main writ petition is still pending?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This petition is directed against the interim order, dated 20-12-1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court during the pendency of Writ Petition No.768-8 of 1979.
2. Since the writ petition is still pending we would not like to say anything which might prejudice the determination of the same. Suffice it to say that the Provincial Government through the Secretary Forestry and Wild Life Department had filed a writ petition challenging the order of allotment passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of certain lands which the Forest Department claim was not in the compensation pool and of which it was the rightful owner. A stay order was also issued in favour of the Forest Department. The petitioner herein, who was the respondent before the High Court, filed an application for vacation of the said stay order and some proceedings took place in that connection, the records were summoned and the parties heard. Where after, the impugned order dated 20-12-1979 was passed wherein the following observations occour- "After going through the record produced by the Forest Department, I am fully convinced that the respondent had no right whatsoever to assert any claim over the land involved in this petition of which the Forest Department is the full owner. The stay granted in their favour is hereby confirmed and the application of the respondent for vacation of stay is dismissed."
3. The learned counsel submitted that after the observations to the effect "that the respondent had no right whatsoever to assert any claim over the land involved in this petition of which the Forest Department is the full owner" the writ petition stands practically accepted and further proceedings therein would a formality. Hence in these circumstances he can challenge the validity of the interim order by the present petition.
4. We do not agree with this approach. The writ petition is still pending and the observations made are not a final determination of the case but are of a tentative nature, though the language used is undoubtedly rather strong. In these circumstances, the High Court has still to finally decide the matter which we are sure will be decided after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and law. The present petition before us is, therefore, premature.
5. This petition is dismissed with the above observations.