Writ Petitioner Cannot File Writ Appeal Against Interim Order Granted To Him: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has observed that a writ appeal is not maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, when the Court has already granted the interim relief sought by the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot claim to be an aggrieved party to file an appeal.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan was considering a writ appeal filed by the Principal of Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre, Kasaragod, challenging the interim order passed by a Single Judge staying further proceedings related to the reallocation of BDS students from the college.

The Single Judge had granted a three-month interim stay on the Kerala University of Health Sciences' directive to furnish details of students for transfer, citing the non-functional status of the college's hospital after demolition due to highway widening.

The counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge, staying further proceedings for three months, would not save the situation. Therefore, dissatisfied with the said interim order, despite being in their favour, the appellant has chosen to file this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

The court relied on the decision in K. S. Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358] in which it was held that “An appeal would lie against such orders only if the orders substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties.”

The court also cited various decisions, including Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551], Thomas P. T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and others [2021 (6) KLT 196] and observed that the nature of the 'order' appealable belongs to the category of 'intermediate orders' and the word 'order' is not confined to 'final order' which disposes of the writ petition. The 'orders' should not be ad-interim orders in force pending the miscellaneous petition or orders merely of a procedural nature.

The court, thus, held that,

“When the interim relief as sought for in the writ petition has already been granted by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner, who is not a person aggrieved by that interim order, cannot maintain a writ appeal against that order, by invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.”

And with respect to a relief needed beyond the order, the court added “If the writ petitioner requires any further direction, beyond the scope of the interim order sought for in the writ petition, he has to move an interlocutory application in the writ petition for that purpose, instead of challenging the interim order already granted by the learned Single Judge in a writ appeal filed before the Division Bench under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.”

The appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, and the interim order passed in the writ appeal was vacated.

Case Title: The Principal v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 342

Case No. W.A. No. 773 of 2025

Counsel for Appellant: Adv. P.S. Biju

Counsel for Respondents: Advs. C.Dinesh, P.Sreekumar (Sr.)(K/410/1994), Shri.Asok M.Cherian Addl. Advocate General, Shri. K.B. Ramanand. Spl. G.P. To A.A.G, Smt. O M Shalina DSGI, Sri. Binny Thomas. SC, Kerala University of Health Sciences, Sri. K B Ramanand, Spl GP To AAG