2002 INSC 0020
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                 State of U.P.

                                                      Vs.

                                Modern Transport Company, Ludhiana

                             (B Kirpal, K Balakrishnan and A Pasayat JJ.)

                                                 11.01.2002

                                                   ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The respondents had filed a writ petition in the High Court being aggrieved by the action
of the appellants in seizing the vehicle and detaining the goods which were being transported
by the respondents. The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction for the release of the
goods and the vehicle. This petition was filed, according to the learned counsel for the
appellant, on 6th November, 2000, the following order was passed by the High Court:

        "Until further orders we direct that the truck and goods which had been detained on
        5.10.2000 and 7.10.2000 shall be released forthwith in favour of petitioner.

        As regards the goods which have been seized they will be released on petitioners
        furnishing bank guarantee before respondent No. 2 to the tune of 10% of the Bill
        value as mentioned in the sale invoices."

3. There is nothing to indicate that any notice was issued and adequate opportunity given tot
eh appellants herein to file a reply in opposition to the writ petition. The copy of the order
filed also does not indicate any counsel being present on behalf of the appellants herein.
Without giving any reason whatsoever, orders were passed by the High Court directing the
release of the truck and the goods. This was the only prayer in the writ petition which, in
effect, stood allowed by the impugned order dated 17th November, 2000.

4. It is unfortunate that the High Court has given no reason whatsoever in support of its
order. It is expected that when interim orders are passed which, in effect, results in the writ
petition itself being allowed, the High Court must give reasons in support thereof.

5. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order, but in as much as the main relief has
already been granted by the High Court the vehicle having been taken away and the goods
having been released, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served with the High Court
purporting to hear the writ petition which had been filed.

1  SpotLaw
That writ petition has, infact, become infructuous. The appellants will now be entitled to
proceed in the case in accordance with law.

6. This appeal is disposed of.

2  SpotLaw