The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has appealed the Civil Court's order restraining it from issuing any interim order restraining the promotions to be given to senior police officers at the High Court.

ACC had filed an appeal in the High Court against the Civil Court's order on January 2 and the high court is yet to take a decision on admitting the plea.

On December 7, the Agency had filed a complaint in the Civil Court seeking a stay on promotions to be given to senior police officers, alleging that some senior police officers were misusing their official position to give undue advantage to certain personnel of the service.

ACC also directed the commission to put on hold the promotion process of promotion to the police till further orders, but on the ground that it was outside the ambit of law and the direction was not required to be complied with, the police service had given promotion to its employees.

According to the agency, the act by the police service was an attempt to obstruct the commission from discharging its legal duties and duties.

Therefore, the ACC has sought a stay order on the implementation of the promotion process till the trial court decides on the matter or delivers a final verdict.

It has also sought a direction to the police not to do anything that may prejudice the right of a third party by promoting the office and to prevent the implementation of such a decision, not to do any further work in connection with it, and not to do anything that would hamper the execution of the trial court's verdict in the case or undermine the very purpose.

Responding to the charge sheet, the police service stated that in view of the request made by the ACC, there is no clear indication that the applicant of an interim order has the right to information that deserves protection. There is no irreversible harm to the ACC due to non-issuance of an interim order.

"Therefore, it is felt that it is not possible to pass an interim order as requested by the ACC," the police service said.

Judge Ali Abdulla, in his ruling on December 20, said that an interim injunction may be passed to provide the next temporary remedy for the court's decision on a case filed in the court or to provide temporary protection.

He said that on the basis of the request of the petitioner for an interim injunction as an urgent matter, "if an interim order is sought as a speedy case, a document stating that while filing the application for the order, the court should include a document stating how it wishes to have an indication of the order to be passed and a draft copy of the said document should be submitted to the court".

"The applicant for the interim order has not submitted the letter stating the requirement of the court order or the soft copy of the said document to the court," the judge said, adding that after investigation, the prosecution should send the charge sheet to the Prosecutor General's Office if there is sufficient evidence against the accused.

The judge noted that the non-compliance of the directions issued by the ACC to the police service "does not impinge upon the power of investigation provided by the Anti-Corruption Commission Act to the applicant of the interim order, so it is clear that the applicant of the interim order has not met the three general conditions that the court has to examine whether it is satisfied in issuing interim orders".

Therefore, the judge ordered that it was not possible to pass an interim order as requested by the ACC.