The Indian legal system, founded on the principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees, provides for multiple levels of judicial review. Among these, the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution plays a pivotal role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring administrative accountability. However, complexities arise when parties seek appellate review of interim orders passed during the pendency of writ petitions. A central issue is the maintainability of a writ appeal against an interim order in the same petition, as seen in The Principal, Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Union of India & Ors. (2025).
Factual Background of the Case
In W.A. No. 773 of 2025, the appellant, Principal of the Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre, approached the Kerala High Court through W.P.(C) No. 8960 of 2025. The petition challenged a communication (Ext.P13) issued by the Kerala University of Health Sciences asking for student data in a prescribed format as a step towards reallocating students from the appellant’s institution due to lack of hospital facilities.
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the said communication.
- Mandamus directing Union of India and Dental Council of India to consider the representations filed.
- A declaration that facilities in the Government Hospital with which the college had a tie-up should suffice for affiliation.
- Interim relief in the form of a stay on further proceedings under Ext.P13.
The Single Judge, on March 6, 2025, granted interim relief staying further action under Ext.P13 for three months. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a writ appeal challenging the adequacy of this interim order, claiming it failed to protect the institution’s interests fully.
Issue
- The primary issue was whether such a writ appeal was maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, when the relief granted was essentially aligned with the interim prayer in the writ petition.
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958
Section 5(i) of the Act provides:
“An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction.”
This provision forms the bedrock of intra-court appeals in the High Court. But does every interim order qualify for such appeal?
Judicial Analysis by the Division Bench
In a well-reasoned judgment, the Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan answered the question in the negative, holding the writ appeal as not maintainable.
Key Findings:
1. Relief Already Granted
The Single Judge had already granted the relief sought: a stay of further proceedings under Ext.P13 for three months. Hence, the petitioner could not claim to be an “aggrieved person.”
2. Nature of Order
- The interim order was not final and was passed pending the writ petition.
- The order did not substantially affect any legal rights or cause irreversible prejudice to the appellant.
- The petitioner’s grievance was not with the existence of the order, but its scope—which should have been addressed through an interlocutory application in the writ petition itself, not a separate writ appeal.
3. Precedents Considered
The Court relied on K.S. Das v. State of Kerala, [1992 (2) KLT 358] (Larger Bench), which interpreted “order” under Section 5(i) to include only those interim orders which:
- Touch substantial rights or liabilities,
- Are matters of moment or cause substantial prejudice,
- Are “intermediate orders” and not “ad-interim” or procedural.
Also referred to Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, [(1977) 4 SCC 551], which distinguished between interlocutory orders and orders having substantial consequences.
4. Alternative Remedy Available
The Court clarified that if the appellant required further directions beyond the interim stay, they could seek it by filing an interlocutory application before the Single Judge—not by invoking appellate jurisdiction.
Key Legal Principles Emanating from the Decision
1. Maintainability of Writ Appeals Is Not Automatic
Not every interim order is appealable. The maintainability of a writ appeal must be tested against whether the order significantly affects rights or causes irreversible consequences.
2. Remedies Within the Writ Petition Must Be Exhausted First
If the interim order granted matches the prayer, dissatisfaction with its scope or duration does not justify an appeal unless a substantial legal prejudice is demonstrated.
3. Avoidance of Parallel Litigation
Filing an appeal against an interim order where relief is substantially granted could lead to unnecessary clogging of court dockets and multiplicity of proceedings.
Highlights of the Judgment
The Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and P. V. Balakrishnan stated:
“In that view of the matter, the conclusion is irresistible that, this writ appeal filed by the appellant-writ petitioner is beyond the scope of Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. 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.
In the result, this writ appeal fails on the ground of maintainability and the same is accordingly dismissed.”
Comparative Perspective
The question of maintainability of intra-court appeals against interim orders arises across High Courts, governed by respective statutes or Letters Patent. However, a common jurisprudential thread runs through these decisions:
In Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, [(2003) 6 SCC 659], the Supreme Court emphasised judicial discipline in entertaining appeals against interlocutory orders.
In State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, [(2008) 8 SCC 92], the apex court held that an appeal against an interim order must demonstrate grave injustice or jurisdictional error.
Thus, the Kerala High Court’s ruling aligns with broader judicial consensus.
Practical Implications
- Prevents Abuse of Appellate Process: Parties must avoid rushing to appellate benches without first exhausting remedies at the original stage, especially in interim matters.
- Protects Judicial Time: Appeals should be reserved for matters of legal moment or irreversible consequence, not tactical dissatisfaction with interim reliefs.
- Clarity for Legal Practitioners: The judgment guides litigants and lawyers on how to address grievances with interim orders—via review/modification in the same petition, not through fresh appeals.
Conclusion
The decision in W.A. No. 773 of 2025 is a clear reiteration of the principle that not all interim orders are appealable, especially when relief is substantially granted and no serious prejudice is caused. By dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability, the Kerala High Court emphasised the need to respect judicial hierarchy, prevent forum shopping, and preserve the sanctity of appellate jurisdiction.
This ruling serves as a vital precedent in Kerala and offers persuasive value in other High Courts facing similar procedural dilemmas. It urges legal practitioners to adopt a more disciplined approach to litigation and underscores that appellate forums are not avenues for remedying tactical or speculative dissatisfaction.