1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT)NO.554/2010 Date of Order :: 20.08.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHAND MAL TOTLA Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has preferred the appeal against the order dated 18.8.2010, which reads as under: - “Issue notice to show cause as to why this petition for writ be not admitted.” The contention of the appellant is that the appellant prayed for the stay as well pressed for the stay during the arguments before the learned Single Judge, but only above order was passed. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant's prayer for grant of stay was neither accepted nor rejected. Not only this, but the learned Single Judge even did not pass order to issue notice on stay application. Further, the learned Single Judge passed the order to issue show cause notice as to why this petition may not be admitted, whereas the matter was in relation to the ensuing elections of the Student Union of the Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the appellant's contention is that in view of the Full Bench 2 judgment delivered in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors and connected matters decided by the judgment dated 5th Dec., 2009 it was obligatory for the University to comply with the Lygdoh Committee's recommendations and, thereafter, the University could have proceeded for the elections of the Student Union. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the very purpose of filing of the writ petition may frustrate as the elections will be held in pursuance of absolutely illegal process. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the case delivered in Shri Khiota Hollohon V. Zachilhu reported in AIR 1993 SC 412, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the purpose of interlocutory order is to preserve in status-quo the rights of the parties so that proceedings do not become infructuous by any unilateral overt acts by one side or the other during its pendency. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that this court may pass interim order so as to prevent a harm to the student of the University and personal loss to the appellant who is also aspirant to contest the election of the Student Union. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order dated 18.8.2010. We 3 have no hesitation in holding that the appellant has no grievance as such against the order dated 18.8.2010 and appellant cannot be aggrieved against the said order of issuing notice for the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant by the High Court. However, according to learned counsel for the appellant the grievance is against non-passing of the interim order by the Single Bench of this Court. From order dated 18.8.2010 we cannot infer that the prayer for stay was pressed before the learned Single Judge. From the memo of appeal also, we do not find any averment of the appellant- petitioner that she pressed the stay petition before the learned Single Judge and further, there is no affidavit of the appellant- petitioner in this appeal that appellant has prayed for interim order before Single Bench. In these facts and circumstances, we have to go only by the order, which has been passed by the learned Single Judge. It is also well settled law that if a point is pressed before the court and that has not been taken note of in the order or there is no mention of a fact, which is relevant for the purpose of taking any decision by the appellate court then it is the duty of the party to first approach the same bench by moving appropriate application and to point out to the same court about his grievance of non-recording of the 4 complete facts in the order. The writ petitions are preferred before the Single Bench of this court in accordance with the Rules and the procedure of the court and the Single Bench of this court has jurisdiction to pass appropriate order and the Single Bench can pass the appropriate order either granting relief or refusing the relief to the appellant – petitioner and this court in the facts of the case is not inclined to usurp the powers of the Single Bench where the writ petition is pending and admittedly, the application for interim relief is pending. It is true that interim orders are passed so that non of the party can over reach the process of the court, but at the same time, it is also settled law that the interim orders can be passed only when there is need for passing of the interim order in the opinion of the court. This court is not inclined to comment anything more on any of the issues because of the reason that any observation of this court may prejudice the case of any of the party on prayer for interim relief. So far as judgment of Kihota Hollohon (supra) is concerned, we gave thoughtful consideration to the said judgment and there is no quarrel and it is settled law that purpose of interlocutory order is to preserve in status-quo the rights of the parties obviously so that the parties may 5 not suffer because of the time, which may be taken by the courts for finally deciding the rights of the parties and further no party can be permitted to over reach the process of the court when matter is pending before the court. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can certainly be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge also by moving appropriate application again for interim relief. In view of the fact that before us in appeal virtually there is no impugned order, we do find any reason to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to move appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for the relief. [C.M. TOTLA],J. [PRAKASH TATIA],J. cpgoyal/-