Source:  High Court of Kerala 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan has held that a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is not maintainable when the petitioner has already been granted the interim relief sought, as such a petitioner cannot be considered an "aggrieved person" entitled to appeal. 

• The High Court of Kerala held this in the matter of The Principal v. Union of India & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of The Principal v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre, located in Kasaragod district, was compelled to demolish their dental hospital due to the widening of the National Highway. 
• Although the college completed construction of a new dental hospital building, it had not yet become functional at the time of the legal proceedings. 
• To ensure continuity of operations, the college established a tie-up arrangement with the District Hospital, Kanhangad, with proper approval from relevant authorities for clinical training of students. 
• The Kerala University of Health Sciences, acting upon a request from the Director of Medical Education, issued a communication dated 24th February 2025 directing the college to provide details of all BDS students and house surgeons. 
• This communication was issued with the specific intention of reallocating students from the dental college on the grounds that it allegedly lacked adequate hospital facilities. 
• The college management approached the Kerala High Court through a writ petition seeking to quash this communication and prevent the proposed student reallocation. 
• The Single Judge granted a favorable interim stay of three months on all proceedings related to the student reallocation directive. 
• Despite receiving the interim relief they had originally sought, the college was dissatisfied with the limited duration and scope of the protection offered. 
• Consequently, the college filed a writ appeal challenging the very interim order that had been granted in their favor, seeking more comprehensive and extended protection for the institution. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Division Bench observed that a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, cannot be maintained when the petitioner has already received the interim relief they originally sought from the Single Judge. 
• The court observed that only a person who is genuinely aggrieved by an order possesses the legal standing to challenge it through the appellate process, and a successful petitioner cannot claim to be aggrieved by a favourable order. 
• Relying on the precedent in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala (2022), the court clarified that appeals against interim orders are permissible only when such orders substantially affect the rights or liabilities of parties or cause significant prejudice. 
• The court noted that appealable orders must fall within the category of 'intermediate orders' as recognized by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977), and should not be merely ad-interim or procedural orders. 
• The Division Bench stated that when a petitioner requires additional directions beyond the scope of granted interim relief, the proper remedy is filing an interlocutory application within the original writ petition rather than challenging the favourable order. 
• The court concluded that the writ appeal was beyond the scope of Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act since the appellant was not an aggrieved party regarding the interim order they were challenging. 
• Consequently, the appeal failed on grounds of maintainability and was dismissed, with the court clarifying that this dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek further directions through appropriate interlocutory applications. 
• The court vacated the interim order dated 16th April 2025 that was granted in the writ appeal, while preserving the petitioner's right to approach the original writ petition for any additional relief. 

What is the Writ Appeal Against Interim Order? 

• A writ appeal is a statutory right of appeal provided against judgments and orders of a Single Judge exercising original jurisdiction in constitutional courts, with the scope generally governed by specific provisions in High Court Acts. 
• Interim orders are temporary directions issued by courts during the pendency of main proceedings to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm, but not all interim orders are appealable under law. 
• An appeal against an interim order is maintainable only when such order substantially affects the rights or liabilities of parties or causes significant prejudice that cannot be remedied later, distinguishing between different categories based on their nature and impact. 
• The law recognizes 'intermediate orders' as those that are neither purely procedural nor final dispositive orders but have substantial impact on proceedings, while ad-interim orders of temporary nature are generally not appealable. 
• The fundamental principle of appellate jurisdiction requires that only an 'aggrieved person' who has suffered legal injury or adverse impact from an order has the standing to file an appeal against that order. 
• A party who has received favourable relief from a court cannot be considered an aggrieved person and lacks legal standing to challenge that favourable order through appeal, as they have not suffered any legal injury. 
• When a party requires modifications or additional directions beyond the scope of a granted interim order, the appropriate remedy is to seek such relief through interlocutory applications in the original proceedings rather than challenging the existing favourable order through appeal.