The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that an appeal lies against an interlocutory order if it grants final relief, such as directing an enquiry or report submission, thereby affecting the rights of parties. This judgment reinforces the principle that the nature, tenor, and impact of an order determine its appealability, not merely its label as interim or final.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Daly College Society through its Secretary, challenged an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19363/2026. The writ petition was filed by respondent No. 8, contesting the elections to the Board of Governors of the appellant society held on 21.05.2026. The dispute centered on allegations of manipulation, ante-dating, and tampering of election records, as well as the arbitrary rejection of the petitioner's nomination form.
Key Facts
- The elections to the Board of Governors of Daly College Society were held on 21.05.2026.
- Respondent No. 8 filed a writ petition (W.P No. 19363/2026) challenging the elections on grounds of irregularities.
- Respondent No. 8 filed:
- A complaint before the Registrar (Annexure P-11 dated 24.05.2026).
- A complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell (Annexure P-9 dated 04.05.2026).
- The impugned order (dated 29.05.2026) stayed the operation of an order dated 03.05.2026 (Annexure P/7) and issued directions for enquiries and reports.
Procedural History
- 21.05.2026: Elections held for the Board of Governors.
- 04.05.2026: Respondent No. 8 filed complaint before Superintendent of Police (Annexure P-9).
- 24.05.2026: Respondent No. 8 filed complaint before the Registrar (Annexure P-11).
- 29.05.2026: Learned Single Judge passed interim order in W.P No. 19363/2026, directing:
- Stay on the operation of Annexure P/7 (order dated 03.05.2026).
- The Registrar to conduct a detailed enquiry on Annexure P-11 and submit a report within 15 days.
- The Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell to submit a report on Annexure P-9 within 15 days.
- The elected body to function but refrain from taking policy decisions until the next hearing.
- 10.06.2026: Present writ appeal (WA No. 1877/2026) filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant (Daly College Society):
- Argued that the impugned order granted final relief by directing enquiries and report submissions, which are akin to the final relief sought in the writ petition (para 7.4).
- Contended that the directions were issued without hearing the appellant, thereby taking away the discretion of statutory authorities.
- Relied on Arvind Kumar Jain v. State of M.P and Ors. (2007 SCC Online MP 264) and Dr. Jyoti Swaroop v. State of M.P and Ors. (2026 SCC Online 7313), which held that an appeal lies against an interim order if it decides collateral issues or affects rights in a final manner.
For the Respondent (State/Respondent No. 8):
- Raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against an interlocutory order under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2005.
- Argued that the petition was filed with malafide intention to restrain statutory authorities from exercising their powers.
- Contended that no prejudice or irreparable loss was caused to the appellant by the impugned order.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to conduct enquiries and submit reports.
- Opportunity of hearing to be afforded before reconsidering the prayer for directions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an interim order passed by a Single Judge, which directs authorities to conduct enquiries and submit reports (akin to final relief), is appealable under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The impugned order granted final relief by directing the Registrar and Superintendent of Police to conduct enquiries and submit reports, which was the exact relief sought in para 7.4 of the writ petition.
- The directions were issued without hearing the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
- Relied on precedents (Arvind Kumar Jain and Dr. Jyoti Swaroop) to argue that the nature, tenor, and impact of an order determine its appealability, not its label as interim or final.
For the Respondent
- Contended that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against an interlocutory order, which is barred under Section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam.
- Argued that the appellant had not suffered any prejudice or irreparable loss due to the impugned order.
- Alleged that the appeal was filed with malafide intention to obstruct statutory authorities from exercising their powers.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench examined the impugned order and observed that the learned Single Judge had issued imperative directions to:
- The Registrar to conduct a detailed enquiry on Annexure P-11 and submit a report within 15 days.
- The Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell to submit a report on Annexure P-9 within 15 days.
The Court noted that these directions were akin to final relief, as they mirrored the prayer in para 7.4 of the writ petition, which sought:
"To be pleased to direct an independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry/investigation by a competent authority into the apparent manipulation, ante-dating and tampering of official election records, post-facto insertion of alleged election guidelines and the arbitrary and mala fide rejection of the petitioner's nomination form during the election process conducted by the Respondents."
The Court held that the learned Single Judge had effectively granted the final relief sought by the writ petitioner without adjudicating the merits of the case and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. This amounted to taking away the discretion of the statutory authorities and violated principles of natural justice.
The Court relied on the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Jain and Dr. Jyoti Swaroop, which held that an appeal lies against an interim order if it decides a collateral issue, affects rights in a final manner, or grants relief akin to the final relief sought. The Court distinguished such orders from routine interim orders, which do not decide substantive rights.
The Verdict
The Division Bench partly allowed the writ appeal and set aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to:
- Conduct a detailed enquiry on Annexure P-11.
- Submit a report on Annexure P-9.
The Court directed that the learned Single Judge reconsider the prayer for directions after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the appellant. The stay on the operation of Annexure P/7 and the direction restraining the elected body from taking policy decisions remained intact.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Orders Granting Final Relief Are Appealable
- Practitioners must scrutinize interim orders to determine if they grant relief akin to final relief, such as directing enquiries, investigations, or report submissions.
- If an interim order takes away the discretion of statutory authorities or grants the exact relief sought in the main petition, it may be appealable under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2005.
- Courts will examine the nature, tenor, and impact of an order, not merely its label as interim or final.
Principles of Natural Justice Must Be Followed
- Opportunity of hearing must be afforded to all parties before issuing directions that affect their rights, even in interim orders.
- Directions that prejudge the merits of a case or grant final relief without adjudication are liable to be set aside.
- Statutory authorities must not be denied their discretion by judicial orders passed without hearing affected parties.
Precedents on Appealability of Interim Orders
- The judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Jain v. State of M.P and Dr. Jyoti Swaroop v. State of M.P, which hold that:
- An appeal lies against an interim order if it decides a collateral issue.
- An appeal lies if the order affects rights in a final manner.
- The impact of the order is more important than its label as interim or final.
- Practitioners should cite these precedents to challenge interim orders that grant final or quasi-final relief.
