Where an administrative body is aggrieved by an interim order under Article 226(3), must it apply to vacate that order before the writ court rather than file a writ appeal?

Article 226(3) of the Constitution provides a statutory remedy for a body aggrieved by an interim order — the proper procedure is to file an application to vacate the interim order before the same forum, rather than bypassing the writ court and rushing to the appellate court.

Constitution of India — Article 226(3) — Letters Patent — Clause 15 — Writ appeal — Maintainability against interlocutory order — Constitution of India — Article 226(3) — Letters Patent — Clause 15 — Interlocutory order — Test of appealability — Held: A writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies only against an order bearing the traits of a true judgment — one that conclusively settles a vital right, resolves a fundamental dispute or causes direct and irreparable prejudice. An order that determines no final rights and inflicts no permanent harm does not qualify. (¶4, 6) Letters Patent — Clause 15 — Interim orders — Five categories — Which are appealable — Held further: Interim orders fall into five categories; orders finally deciding a question in controversy, an issue materially and directly affecting the final decision, or a collateral issue, constitute judgments and are appealable, while routine orders facilitating progress of the case and orders causing mere inconvenience without finally determining rights are not. (¶5) Constitution of India — Article 226(3) — Statutory remedy against interim order — Proper forum — Held further: Where an administrative body is aggrieved by an interim order of the writ court, the proper procedure is to apply for vacating that order before the same forum under Article 226(3), and not to bypass the writ court by rushing to the appellate court. On facts, a direction to provisionally accept an application, without any final opinion on eligibility, is a routine protective measure and the writ appeal against it is not maintainable; appeal dismissed, with liberty to raise ineligibility by counter-affidavit before the Single Judge. (¶7, 8)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Government of Tamil Nadu v. D.Akshay Kumar — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India