Chandu and others vs Chief Canal Officer, Haryana and others

J.V. Gupta, J.

This writ petition was admitted after notice of motion. In the writ petition, a prayer for staying the implementation of the impugned orders, Annexures P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 was also made. In the order dated March 17, 1982, of the admitting Bench, there is no mention of any order staying the operation of the impugned orders, as prayed for. Under the circumstances, this prayer would be deemed to have been refused by the admitting Bench. It may be observed that it is always desirable to make the prayer for the grant of an interim relief at the time of the motion hearing because the Bench hearing the case is seized of the whole matter and is in a position to grant or refuse the ad interim relief as may be proper under the circumstances of the case. Thus, when a prayer is specifically made in the petition and subsequently, it is stated that it was not pressed at that time, it cannot be accepted as such; rather it would be deemed that the prayer was disallowed.

Apart from that, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have filed a detailed reply to the civil miscellaneous application. In view of the averments made therein, I do not find that any case is made out for the grant of any ad interim relief at this stage particularly when the same was not allowed by the admitting Bench.

Consequently, the ex parte stay order dated July 20, 1982, staying the implementation of the impugned orders. Annexures P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3 is hereby vacated and the civil miscellaneous application is dismissed with costs.