Case: Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; Others

prima facie case and balance of convenience." 28. This Court in Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hira Lal, AIR 1962 SC 527 held that the civil court has a power to grant interim injunction in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even if the case does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure. 29. In Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1975 , this Court considered a case where the courts below had refused the grant of interim relief. While dealing with the appeal, the Court observed that ordinarily in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution, this Court does not interfere with the orders of interim nature passed by the High Court. However, this rule of discretion followed in practice is by way of just self-imposed restriction. An irreparable injury which forcibly tilts the balance in favour of the applicant, may persuade the Court even to grant an interim relief though it may amount to granting the final relief itself. The Court held as under:- "The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice." 30. Such a course is permissible when the case of the applicant is based on his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. (vide All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 452). 31. In Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 61 , this Court observed as under:- "The courts, however, have to strike a balance between two extreme positions viz. whether the writ petition would itself become infructuous if interim order is refused, on the one hand, and the enormity of losses and hardships which may be suffered by others if an interim order is granted, particularly having regard to the fact that in such an event, the losses sustained by the affected parties thereby may not be possible to be redeemed." 32. Thus, the law on the issue emerges to the effect that interim injunction should be granted by the Court after considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same. The order can be passed on settled principles taking into account the three basic grounds i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The delay in approaching the Court is of course a good ground for refusal of interim relief, but in exceptional circumstances, where the case of a party is based on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and there is an apprehension that suit property may be developed in a manner that it acquires irretrievable situation, the Court may grant relief even at a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the applicant has not been negligent in pursuing the case.33. Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. (Vide Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 638 ; and Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1159).34. If the instant case is considered, in the light of the above settled legal propositions and admittedly the whole case of the appellant is based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as according to the appellant it has been a case of violation of equality clause enshrined in Article 14, the facts mentioned hereinabove clearly establish that the Corporation and the Government proceeded in haste while considering the application of respondent No.4 which tantamount to arbitrariness, thus violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Application of the appellant was required to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. Admittedly, no reason was assigned for rejecting the same. There is nothing on record to show as on what date and under what circumstances, Plot nos.F-16 and F-17 stood decarved and became part of the Open Space No.9. The respondents could not furnish any explanation as in what manner and under what circumstances, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has been made allotment of land from plot no.F-16, (a part of Open Space No.9), without change of user of the land. The respondent no.4 had not initially asked for 17 acres of land which has been allotted to it. There is nothing on record to show as to why the land could not be disposed of by auction. All these circumstances provide for basis to form a tentative opinion that State and its instrumentalities have acted affectionately in the case of respondent no.4.35. Undoubtedly, there has been a delay on the part of the appellant in approaching the court but we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant had been approaching the authorities time and again for allotment of the land. Admittedly, the entire land had not been developed by the respondent no.4 till this Court entertained the Special Leave Petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land measuring 2 acres adjacent to the appellants plot no.F-15 vide order dated 21.7.2008. Therefore, it is not only the appellant who is to be blamed for the delay. The land had been allotted to the respondent no.4 in undue haste and no development could take place therein for more than two years of taking the possession of the land. In such a fact-situation the submission made on behalf of the respondents that interim stay cannot be granted at a belated stage in preposterous.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]32. Thus, the law on the issue emerges to the effect that interim injunction should be granted by the Court after considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same. The order can be passed on settled principles taking into account the three basic grounds i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The delay in approaching the Court is of course a good ground for refusal of interim relief, but in exceptional circumstances, where the case of a party is based on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and there is an apprehension that suit property may be developed in a manner that it acquires irretrievable situation, the Court may grant relief even at a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the applicant has not been negligent in pursuing the case.33. Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. (Vide Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 638 ; and Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1159).34. If the instant case is considered, in the light of the above settled legal propositions and admittedly the whole case of the appellant is based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as according to the appellant it has been a case of violation of equality clause enshrined in Article 14, the facts mentioned hereinabove clearly establish that the Corporation and the Government proceeded in haste while considering the application of respondent No.4 which tantamount to arbitrariness, thus violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Application of the appellant was required to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. Admittedly, no reason was assigned for rejecting the same. There is nothing on record to show as on what date and under what circumstances, Plot17 stood decarved and became part of the Open Space No.9. The respondents could not furnish any explanation as in what manner and under what circumstances, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has been made allotment of land from plot(a part of Open Space No.9), without change of user of the land. The respondent no.4 had not initially asked for 17 acres of land which has been allotted to it. There is nothing on record to show as to why the land could not be disposed of by auction. All these circumstances provide for basis to form a tentative opinion that State and its instrumentalities have acted affectionately in the case of respondent no.4.35. Undoubtedly, there has been a delay on the part of the appellant in approaching the court but we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant had been approaching the authorities time and again for allotment of the land. Admittedly, the entire land had not been developed by the respondent no.4 till this Court entertained the Special Leave Petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land measuring 2 acres adjacent to the appellants plotvide order dated 21.7.2008. Therefore, it is not only the appellant who is to be blamed for the delay. The land had been allotted to the respondent no.4 in undue haste and no development could take place therein for more than two years of taking the possession of the land. In such athe submission made on behalf of the respondents that interim stay cannot be granted at a belated stage in preposterous.