1 2025:CGHC:49108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 707 of 2025 Narendra Singh Thakur S/o Shri Shatruhan Singh Thakur, aged about 43 years R/o Adarsh Balak School High School Road, Ward No. 5, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, GE Road, Opposite Govt. Hospital Durg Acting In The Premises Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25 . 09 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9180 of 2025, whereby I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for grant of ad- interim relief, has been rejected. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 3. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent submits that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, for short, the Act of 2006, which specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order, to which learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, submits that the instant writ appeal is maintainable under the Rules as the same comes within the purview of bearing on the final adjudication of the case and therefore, the law declared by this Hon’ble Court in case of Ajay Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in AIR 2017 Chh 45, squarely applies making the present writ appeal maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned Single Judge without looking into the files of other writ petitions ought not to have held that facts of the case of those writ petitions relied upon by appellant and also mentioned in impugned order are distinguishable. Even for the sake of argument if it is presumed that learned Single Judge might have called records of those cases then also before holding that facts of those cases are similar to the present case, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given. He also submits that the matter lies in very short compass when the penalty proposed cannot exceed not only in terms of statutory / delegated legislation but also as per law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court, then other aspects of the matter ought to have been examined from the lenses of particular Rule 3 prohibiting imposition of greater penalty than proposed in show cause notice. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed an illegality which requires rectification in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. He contended that as per law declared in the matter of State (NCT) Delhi Vs. KL Rathi Steels Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2024) 7 SCC 315, for any reason whatsoever even if other Bench has different views then judicial discipline demands maintenance as for in the interest of administration of justice a party should not be tempted to get the matter reopened before other Bench. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that it is only an order rejecting the application for grant of ad-interim relief and not amounts to passing of the final order. Moreover, after examining the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance and is wholly unfounded. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to make mention before the concerned Writ Court for deciding the matter at the earliest. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra