1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD).Nos.709 to 712 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,2,2,2 and 2 of 2011 M.Palanisamy : Appellant in all Writ Appeals Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur. 3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Karut Taluk, Karur District. : Respondents in All Writ Appeals PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.07.2011 made in M.P.Nos.3,3,3 and 3 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).Nos.7682, 7683, 7693 and 7694 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Prayer: MP 3/2011 in WP.7682/2011 To pass an order of Interim Injunction restraining the respondents, Their agents, officers and men from in any way interfering with in any manner pursuant to the G.O.(MS)No.32. dated 11.02.11 with the sale or transport of sand duly purchased from the PWD from the Stock Yard of the Petitioner measuring 2-49 acres comprised in SF.Nos.319A,319/B2 and B20 B, situated in KOMBUPALAYAM VILLAGE, KARUR TALUK. 1-00 acres out of the total extent of 3-67 acres comprised in SF Nos.2093/1, 2095/1, 2096/2, 2608/1, 2083/1 and 2083/2, situated in NERUTHENBAGAM VILLAGE, KARUR TALUK, 1-25 acres in SF.No 916 situated in PUNJAITHOTTA KURCHI, VILLAGE, KARUR TALUK and all the three Villages in Karur District. 2. MP 3/2011 in WP 7683/2011: To pass an order of Interim Injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, officers and men from in any way interfering with in any manner pursuant to the G.O(MS) No.32 dated 11.02.2011 with the sale or transport of sand duly purchased from the PWD from the stockyard of the petitioner measuring 3-50 acres comprised in survey No.245/18A situated in TUVARPALAYAM NANNIYOR VILLAGE, KARUR TALUK, 0-28 acres out of the total extent of 0-42 and 0-25 acres out of the total extent of 0-38 acres totally measuring 0-53 acres in Survey No.21 situated in MARUDUR VILLAGE, KULITHALAI TALUK, 2-85 acres in Survey No.8/2D situated in VADIYAM VILLAGE and all three Villages in Karur District. 3. MP 3/2011 in WP 7693/2011 and MP 3/2011 in WP 7694/2011: Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavits filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to pass an order of Interim Injunction restraining the respondents their agents, officers and Men from in any way interfering with in any manner pursuant to the G.O.(MS)No.32 dated 11.02.2011 with the sale or transport of sand duly purchased from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the PWD from the Stockyard of the Petitioner. i) Measuring 1-25 acres in Survey No.1 and 0.37 ½ acres out of total extent of 3.75 acres in Survey No.62/2A1 situated in THIRUKAM PULIYUR, Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, 0-25-5 Hectares out of the total extent of 0-51-0 Hectares in Survey No.1/A2 situated in NANNIYOOR Village, Karur Taluk, 1-90 acres in Survey No.671 and 782 situated in VENGAL Village, Karur Taluk and all the three villages in Karur District (in MP(MD). 3/2011 in W.P.7693/11) ii) measuring 3.00 acres comprised in Survey No.922/2B1 situated in NANJAI THOTTAKURUCHI Village, Karur Taluk, measuring 2.00 acres comprised in Survey S.F.No.53 and 1-50 acres in Survey SF.No.46/1 and 47/2 situated in PUNJAIKALLAKURUCHI VILLAGE, Aravakuruchi Taluk all villages in Karur District in (MP.3/2011 in WP.7694/11) pending disposal of the above WP.7693 & 7694/11 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.V.T.Gopalan Senior Counsel For Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY P.JYOTHIMANI, J] These Writ Appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2011 made in M.P.Nos.3,3,3 and 3 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).Nos.7682, 7683, 7693 and 7694 of 2011. 2. The operative portion of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as follows:- "Though the petitioner has claimed that he has got certificate of registration from the Commercial Tax authorities showing that he has got branch offices to store the sand and sought for injunction restraining the respondents from transporting sand from all the branch offices, this Court is not inclined to grant any injunction as prayed for. However, restrict the injunction only in respect of principal place of business". 3. On the face of it, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has passed only interim orders and kept the Miscellaneous Petitions pending and posted the case on 25.07.2011. Inasmuch as only an interim arrangement has been made and no final order has been passed in the Miscellaneous Petitions, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. 4. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would rely on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 Supp 1 SCC 461, to substantiate his contention that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court and granted interim stay. In the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the conditions for grant of stay vary widely from Bench to Bench in the High Court and that while in an earlier case CWP.No.6074 of 1993 and connected case, a Division Bench had ordered unconditional stay on 17.06.1993 and continued the same order on 07.09.1993, in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 present case, the Bench had imposed a condition of payment of 25 per cent of the demand. 3. In the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedents cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasions for grievances of discriminatory treatment requires that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach. 4. We set aside the order under appeal. There will be an interim stay for eight weeks. It is submitted that the matters are listed for final hearing on 30.11.1993. If the matters are not disposed of before eight weeks, petitioners may seek further stay and the prayer in that behalf be listed before the appropriate Bench. The Chief Justice of the High Court will list all similar and connected matters before some specific Bench whichever it might be." 5. Inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has not taken any decision and the Miscellaneous Petitions are pending, we only request the learned Single Judge either to take up the Miscellaneous Petitions for final disposal or the main Writ Petitions, which may be decided by the learned Single Judge. Except making the above observation, no further order is necessary. Hence, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, Industries Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur. 3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Karut Taluk, Karur District. +1CC THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.25855 +4CC TO MR.K.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE SR.25735 NB SR : 12.08.2011 : 3p/9c COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).Nos.709 to 712 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,2,2,2 and 2 of 2011 02.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/