Abhimanyoo Ram vs State Of U.P.& Anr

2. The appellant was enrolled/registered with the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh on 23.7.2003. He got his name deleted from the State Register of Indian Medicine so as to enroll himself in another State. He again sought re-enrolment in Uttar Pradesh which was granted with prospective effect from 23.8.2007. He was denied interview for selection by the respondents to the post of Medical Officer, as his re-enrolment did not fulfil the eligibility requirements. He therefore wanted his registration to be restored with retrospective effect from the date of original enrolment. He 2 filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to respondents to call him for interview for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurved/Unani). In the said petition, an interim order was granted on 31.10.2007, permitting him to appear in such interview. By making use of the said interim order, he secured an order from the Board of Indian Medicine, UP, restoring his enrolment from the date of initial registration. Consequently, he was called for the interview. Thereafter, he moved the court for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed. The High Court, on 25.2.2008, accordingly dismissed the writ petition by the following order:

5. Any attempt by a litigant to retain the benefit of the interim order by avoiding final adjudication, requires to be deprecated. In fact, it requires to be dealt with sternly. Courts should bestow caution while dismissing cases where interim relief had been granted, as not pressed or as withdrawn. The courts cannot proceed on the assumption that all concerned would know about the legal consequences of dismissal and therefore, it is not necessary to make any order in regard to the interim relief already granted. Even 5 though the legal effect of dismissal on withdrawal, is vacation of the interim order, the concerned respondents not being aware of the legal consequences, will not take consequential action but continue the benefit extended to the petitioner by the interim order, unless there is a specific direction spelling out the consequences. Sometimes, the concerned departmental officials, on account of collusion with the petitioners who had obtained the interim relief, will not withdraw or reverse the benefit granted to the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order, when the petition is withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, appropriate consequential directions cancelling or vacating the interim order should be passed so as to restore status quo ante. In cases where the prayer for dismissal (as not pressed or withdrawn) is made even before the respondent is served, then the order vacating the interim order should be communicated to the authority against whom the interim order was issued, so that any benefit extended as a consequence of the interim order, can be withdrawn or reversed. The only exception is where the respondents agree for the continuance of the interim order as a final relief, or agree that the benefit of the interim order already granted need not be disturbed, in which event, the court should record such submission and pass appropriate consequential orders. 6

8. In this case, the appellant was not put on notice about the consequential direction to be issued on acceptance of the request for withdrawal, nor given the option of continuing with the case, if he did not want dismissal of his petition with any added directions. To that extent it can be said that there has been violation of a facet of principles of natural justice.

9. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 25.2.2008 of the High Court and restore the writ petition to the file of the High Court, with permission to the Appellant to pursue the writ petition in accordance with law.