In Kapila Hingorani (I) v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0403/2003 : (2003) 6 SCC 1, the apex Court while dealing with meaning of "precedent" has held as follows:
"A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot be a precedent. Any reasons assigned in support of such non-final interim order containing prima facie findings, are only tentative. Any interim directions issued on the basis of such prima facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either in-fructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing."
Similar view has also been taken by the apex court in State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, MANU/SC/0387/2009 : (2009) 5 SCC 694 wherein, it is further clarified that an interim order cannot be said to be a precedent. The interim directions issued on the basis of prima facie findings, are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before final hearing. This being the position, while vacating the interim order, no decision has been rendered by the Larger Bench of this Court, thereby the order so passed cannot be taken into consideration as no ratio decidendi to characterise as precedent for the present case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos. 11817 and 12427 of 2016
Decided On: 13.01.2017
Mohapatra Binders and Ors. Vs. State of Odisha and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vineet Saran, C.J., Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath and Dr. B.R. Sarangi, JJ.
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 205 Orissa
