SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Y.K. Sabharwal and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No.1487 of 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25207 of 2004) D/d. 28.2.2005.

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Appellants

Versus

Chhater Singh Baid & Ors. - Respondents

Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 136 - Interim order passed by Single Bench assailed in appeal before Division Bench of High Court - Said order modified by Division Bench without giving reasons - Held - Order of Division Bench cannot be sustained and therefore liable to set aside - Order of Single Bench restored.

[Para 4]

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Leave granted.

2. Pending decision of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, considering the demand of the Corporation, being in the sum of more than Rupees five crores, which was under challenge in the said petition, as an interim measure, directed the writ petitioners, respondents herein to pay a sum of Rupees one crore in instalments of Rupees ten lakhs per month so that the facilities, like water supply, could be restored to the writ petitioners. Since the writ petitioners were not agreeable, the prayer for ad-interim order was declined. In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, directed the writ petitioners to pay a sum of Rupees thirty lakhs, instead of Rupees one crore, in a period of three months by equal instalments of Rupees ten lakhs each. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the Corporation is in appeal.

3. The payment of Rupees thirty lakhs has been made by the respondents but it has not been accepted by the Corporation-Appellants.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have noticed that the amount by way of one-time settlement has been reduced to a sum of Rs. 1,88,71,481/-, payable on or before 31st January, 2005, under the Waiver Scheme. This is not acceptable to the respondents. The questions in issue between the parties are pending determination before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and we are, therefore, of the view that it is neither necessary nor desirable to go into the merits of the controversy. The Division Bench of the High Court has not given any reasons for varying/modifying the directions of the learned Single Judge, who had examined the facts and figures in arriving at the conclusion that Rupees one crore shall be paid in instalments, as aforesaid. In this view, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents states that a sum of Rupees thirty lakhs shall be paid to the Corporation within two weeks and the remaining amount of Rupees seventy lakhs shall be paid in equal instalments spread over twelve months commencing from 1st April, 2005. The amount will be paid by the tenth of each month. We permit the payments being made, as suggested. The payments would be without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, which are subject matter of the writ petition.

6. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.

7. No costs.

.