2005 Supreme(SC) 836

2005(4) Supreme 490
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
N. Santosh Hedge & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3271 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) No. 7405 of 2005)
With
I.A.No. 2 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No. 7405 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3272-3273 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 7549-7550 of 2005)
With
I.A.No. 7-11 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 7549-7550 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal No. 3274 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) No. 10511 of 2005)
With
I.A.No. 3 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No. 10511 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal No. 3275 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) No. 7453 of 2005)
With
I.A.No. 2 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) 7453 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal No. 3276 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) No. 7451 of 2005)
With
I.A.Nos. 2-3 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No. 7451 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal No. 3277 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) No. 8362 of 2005)
With
I.A.No. 2 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No. 8362 of 2005
And
Civil Appeal No. 3278 of 2005
(@ SLP (C) No. 8378 of 2005)
With
I.A.No. 2 In C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No. 8378 of 2005
Decided on 11-5-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, F.S. Nariman, Arun Jaitley, K. Parasaran, Mukul Rohtagi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Iqbal Chagla, K.K. Singhvi, Colin Gonsalves, R.F. Nariman, T.R. Andhyarujina, Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocates, Ravi Kadam, AG., for State of Maharashtra, Percy Chandy, J.J. Bhatt, Ms. Zia Modi, Pretesh Kapoor, Easai Vahanvati, Shailesh, C. Rashmikant, Gopal Jain, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Pragya Singh, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Ms. Avantika Keshwani, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Sushil Kumar Pathak, S.S. Shinde, A.P. Mayee, Janak Dwarkadas, Rishi Agrawal, E.C. Agrawala, Lynn Periera, Gautam Patel, Prag Kabadi, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sharad J., Dheeraj Nair, Vikas Mehta, S.H. Ujjainwala, Pallav Shisodia, D.N. Mishra, Ms. Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar, Prem Kishan, Vipin M. Benjamin, Mrs. Purnima Bhat Kak, Pankaj R., U.A. Rana, Mrs. K. Sumathi, Anil Menon, U. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Susan Zachariah, A. Venayagam, M.N. Shroff, M.S. Girish, Chirag M. Shroff, Pratap Venugopal, Dhawan V., Dilnawaz Bhagalia, Advocate for K.J. John., Advocate/Advocates.
Important point
Before an interim order is passed and in particular a public interest litigation, the court must consider the question as regard existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience as also the question as to whether the writ petitioners shall suffer an irreparable injury, if the injunction sought for is refused.

Headnote:Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966—Development Control Regulations, 1991—Regulation 58—Modernization of mills—Development of surplus mill lands of cotton textile mill—Each of the mill owners could give one of the options specified—Regulation 58 did not work satisfactorily as no significant amount of land either for public green or for MHADA came to be surrendered—Regulation 58 was amended in 2001—Respondents filed a writ petition questioning validity of the regulation—Some interim orders have been passed which are challenged—Pursuant or in furtherance of the new regulation, mill owners allegedly borrowed huge sums of money from banks and financial institutions to pay of dues of workers and also dues of others—Within a span of four years since coming into force of 2001 Regulations, third party rights have been created, sanctions have been obtained for modernization of scheme—Parties have altered their position to a large extent—National Textile Corporation contends that out of 25 mills 17/18 Mills have closed down—Payment of Rs. 643.94 crores have been made to the employees—It was submitted that no stay should be granted—Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.

       Held : This Court at this stage is concerned with an interim order passed by the High Court. The writ petition is still to be heard. Affidavits between the parties are yet to be exchanged. The objection as regard maintainability of the writ petition is also required to be finally determined by the High Court itself. This Court at this stage cannot, thus, enter into all the contentious questions raised in these appeals. But, there cannot be doubt or dispute whatsoever that before an interim order is passed and in particular a public interest litigation, the court must consider the question as regard existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience as also the question as to whether the writ petitioners shall suffer an irreparable injury, if the injunction sought for is refused. The courts normally do not pass an interlocutory order which would affect a person without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Only in extreme cases, an ad interim order can be passed. (Para 24)

       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. (Para 26)

       So far as transactions relating to seven mills belonging to National Thermal Corporation are concerned, including sale of Jupiter Mills, it is not in dispute that transactions have reached a final stage. The purchasers of Jupiter Mills have already paid 16 crores and a sum of Rs. 376 crores would pass hands if the transaction is completed. If the transactions in respect of the mills are not allowed to be completed, the scheme framed by the BIFR would come to a stand still resulting in accrual of interest payable by the National Textile Corporation to the financial institutions besides other hardships which may be caused to various other persons including the workers. We, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as also the law operating in the field, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if the National Textile Corporations are permitted to complete the transactions in terms of the scheme framed by the BIFR but the same shall be subject to the conditions that in the event, the writ petition ultimately succeeds, the vacant land available from other mills, if necessary, shall be offered by way of adjustment. (Paras 30 and 31)

        Any further constructions and/or creation of any third party rights by the mill owners will be at their own risk wherefor they would not claim any equity whatsoever and furthermore the same shall be to the orders of the Court. However, any new application for grant of approval of any lay outs, issue of IODs or commencement certifications may be processed but no construction shall be carried on pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. It appears that there exists some dispute between two rival trade unions. Their interse disputes representing different sections of workers, if any, may be determined by an appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding. (Paras 33 and 34)