THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WA Nos.712 & 746 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 6-5-2008 passed in WP No.5375 of 2008 and the order dated 17-6-2008 passed in WPMP No.16096 of 2008 in WP No.5375 of 2008, respectively. The 6th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in these appeals. As these writ appeals arise out of the same writ petition, at the instance of the 6th respondent in the writ petition, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The un-official respondents in these appeals are the writ petitioners in the writ petition. The writ petitioners are all small scale units manufacturing Barium Carbonate (BaCo3) and allied chemicals. It is their case that while granting industrial license on 28-01-1997, in terms of Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, the licensing authority has accorded permission to the appellant herein (6th respondent in the WP) to manufacture up to 7200 MTs of Barium Carbonate (BaCo3) with condition to export 75% of the annual production. It is stated that while permitting its expansion i.e. the manufacturing capacity, through order dated 11-12-2002, the licensing authority has permitted to manufacture additional annual capacity of 32,800 MTs of Barium Carbonate (BaCo3), thus, making the total annual capacity of the appellant as 40,000 MTs. It is further stated that the licensing authority has imposed a condition that the appellant shall export a minimum of 50% of the additional annual production to be achieved within a maximum period of three years. The grievance of the writ petitioners in the writ petition is that the appellant herein has flagrantly violated the conditions of licence and the undertaking given by it. The learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 6-5-2008 in WP No.5375 of 2008 passed order, which is in the following terms: “Respondents 1 to 5 and 7 are directed to permit the 6th respondent to sell barium carbonate in Indian Market (domestic market) only to an extent of not more than 50% of its annual manufacturing capacity.” 3. This order was modified in WPMP No.16096 of 2008 in WP No.5375 of 2008 and the words “annual manufacturing capacity” in the penultimate portion of order dated 6-5-2008 were substituted with the words “annual production”. 4. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the changed circumstances, inasmuch as the Central Government has de-reserved the subject item of i.e. Barium Carbonate (BaCo3), from the list of items reserved for Exclusive Manufacture in Small Scale Sector, by notification dated 10- 10-2008, the appellant is not obligated to export 50 % of the annual production and there is no export obligation on the part of the appellant. It is also submitted that any violation of the license condition or otherwise by the appellant prior to 9-10-2008 i.e. during the period of export obligation, as there was inconsistent in the production figures furnished by the parties, the learned single Judge ought not to have imposed any restriction on the sale of Barium Carbonate (BaCo3) in the domestic market and left it open to the authorities to take action as to the alleged violation of the export obligation. 5. Sri MS Prasad, learned counsel for the un-official respondents, on the other hand, contended that the un-official respondents are all small scale units involved in manufacture of Barium Carbonate (BaCo3), and to protect their interest, the Government of India by notification dated 18-12-1997 made it obligatory on the part of the large scale unit manufacturing items reserved for small scale units to export 75% or 50%, as the case may be, of their annual production and inasmuch as the appellant herein being a large scale unit has violated the obligation of exporting 50% of its annual production, the learned single Judge, by the impugned, directed the appellant to sell only to the extent of 50 % of the annual production in the Indian market (domestic market). Learned counsel further contended that as per the license condition, the appellant is under obligation to export 50% of the production upto 9-10-2008 i.e. up to the date of de-reserving the item from the list of items reserved for Exclusive Manufacture in Small Scale Sector, in view of the notification dated 10-10-2008 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), Government of India. Learned counsel also submitted that the writ appeal as it is, is not maintainable, as the person (General Manager) of the appellant- Company, who has sworn the affidavit in the writ petition has left the service of the Company, and there is no proper authorization by the Board of Directors in favour of the appellant herein to file these appeals. But this contention cannot be adverted to in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is authorization from the Board of Directors of the Company in favour of the appellant and a Xerox copy thereof is filed as material papers. 6. Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Asst. Solicitor General, appearing for the official respondents submitted that the authorities have already initiated action for the alleged violation of the license condition against the appellant by launching criminal prosecution and a case in STC No.51 of 2007 is pending. 7. Admittedly, the policy of the Government of India on the subject matter, after the date of passing the impugned order by the learned single Judge has been changed, in view of the notification dated 10-10- 2008 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), Government of India, de-reserving the item, Barium Carbonate (BaCo3), from the list of items reserved for Exclusive Manufacture in Small Scale Sector and the net effect of this notification is that the appellant is not obligated to export 50 % of the annual production and there is no export obligation on the part of the appellant after 10-10-2008. The relevant portion of the Press Note No.3 (2001 Series) issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Secretariat for Industrial Assistance in that behalf, reads thus: “2. The list of items reserved for small scale sector is reviewed from time to time. Taking into account various factors, certain items are considered for dereservation. After dereservation, the condition of export obligation becomes redundant and has to be deleted, for which holders of IL/LOI have to approach Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA). 3. In order to avoid references by holders of IL/LOI on a case by case basis for an item(s) which has/have been dereserved by a notification published in the Gazette of India, it has been decided that after issue of this Press Note, Industrial licences/Letter(s) of Intent issued by Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA) in the past which carry the condition of export obligation will be deemed to have been exempted from the operation of this condition for items which stand dereserved by an appropriate notification. No separate amendment/endorsement deleting the condition of export obligation in Industrial licence(s)/Letter of Intent would be necessary. It will be sufficient to attach a copy of this Press Note and the relevant notification on dereservation of an item for the purpose of obtaining exemption from the condition of “Export obligation”. 8. As far the allegation of violation of license condition and undertaking given by the appellant which imposes an obligation to export 50% of the production upto 9-10-2008 i.e. up to the date of de-reserving the item from the list of items reserved for Exclusive Manufacture in Small Scale Sector is concerned, inasmuch as it is submitted that the authorities have initiated appropriate steps and criminal prosecution has been launched against the appellant and the matter is pending, it is within the realm of statutory authorities to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made. 9. In this view of the matter, we clarify that as per the license condition and the undertaking given by appellant, it is under an obligation to export 50 % of the production upto 9-10-2008, and there is no such obligation on its part thereafter in view of the notification dated 10-10-2008 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), Government of India, de-reserving the item, Barium Carbonate (BaCo3), from the list of items reserved for Exclusive Manufacture in Small Scale Sector. 10. The above clarification is subject to further orders that are to be passed in the writ petition being WP No.5375 of 2008 filed by the un- official respondents herein. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 3rd December, 2008 Nrg . THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CMA Nos.851, 859, 808 & 849 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) These appeals are filed against the common order dated 8-8-2007 passed in IA Nos.1148 and 1149 of 2006 in OS No.451 of 2006 by the learned II Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. District Judge, dismissed the applications filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, r/w. Section 151 CPC while directing both the parties to maintain status-quo pending disposal of the suit OS No.451 of 2006. 2. CMA Nos.859 and 851 of 2007 are filed by the plaintiff and whereas CMA Nos.849 and 808 of 2007 are filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in suit OS No.451 of 2006. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after shall be referred to as they are arrayed in suit OS No.451 of 2006. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit OS No.451 of 2006 for declaration of her title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. She claims title to the property under a registered sale deed dated 16-3- 1995 executed by defendants 7 to 9 who purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 21-4-1988 from K.Janga Reddy. The defendants 1 and 2 claim the suit schedule property under registered sale deed executed by defendant no.3, who in turn got the suit schedule property from defendants 7 to 9. Both the parties to the suit claim the suit schedule property under registered sale deeds. Of course, the sale deed dated 16-3-1995 relied on by the plaintiff is anterior in time. 5. The plaintiff moved two applications before the trial Court, one being IA No.1148 of 2006 and the other being IA No.1149 of 2006 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 CPC seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from changing the nature of the suit schedule property and not to alienate or create charge over the suit schedule property pending the suit. 6. The defendants 10 to 12 came on record as LRs of defendant no.5 as per orders in IA No.1905 of 2006. The defendants/respondents filed counters resisting the injunction applications. The plaintiff marked 15 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-15 and whereas the defendants marked 25 documents as Ex.B-1 to B-25. The trial Court on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties directed both the parties to maintain status-quo pending the suit by order dated 8-8-2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “As per the decisions cited, though the petitioner is able to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, she is not entitled for discretionary relief of injunction for the reason that she has filed the suit as well as the above injunction applications against a dead person with such cause of action as if he is alive. However, as there is a chance for the petitioner to succeed in the suit, there is a necessity to protect the interests of both parties pending disposal of the suit .” 7. The order of status-quo is under challenge in these CMAs. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of status-quo granted by the Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is an equitable relief to keep the property in tact pending lis between the parties. Both the counsel requested for direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 9. In that view of the matter, these appeals are disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit OS No.451 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the order impugned in these CMAs. It is made clear that the order of status quo granted by the trial Court shall be in force till disposal of the suit being OS No.451 of 2006. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 11th December, 2007 Nrg.