Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, JJ.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
RAJ SALT PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
WP 1190 Of 2006
Decided On : 07/16/2007
MANDAMUS APPEAL - INTERIM ORDER - ALLOTMENT OF RAILWAY RAKES FOR IMPORT OF SALT - LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - ARTICLE 14 - STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. V. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a small-scale unit manufacturing iodized salt, challenged the decision of the High Power Salt Committee to change the allotment of railway rakes for import of salt from annual to quarterly. The petitioner contended that the change in allotment would affect the running of its plant and that it had a legitimate expectation to continue receiving annual allotment as per the previous practice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in granting an interim order restoring the status quo ante without giving the appellants an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-opposition. The court further held that the petitioner failed to prove a strong prima facie case for an injunction and that the balance of convenience was in favor of refusing the prayer for injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting an interim order restoring the status quo ante without giving the appellants an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-opposition? 2. Whether the petitioner proved a strong prima facie case for an injunction? 3. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of refusing the prayer for injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in granting an interim order restoring the status quo ante without giving the appellants an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-opposition, as this violated the principles of natural justice. 2. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove a strong prima facie case for an injunction, as it did not show that it had a legal or fundamental right to have an annual allotment of the quota and that the change in allotment would cause it irreparable loss and injury. 3. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of refusing the prayer for injunction, as the appellants had no role to play in the matter of allotment of railway rakes and the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss and injury if quarterly allotment was given instead of annual allotment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.
( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and others and is directed against order dated september 14, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship passed an interim order directing that the earlier interim order dated August 31, 2006 passed by His Lordship should continue till the disposal of the writ application.
( 2 ) BY the earlier interim order dated August 31, 2006, His Lordship, on the very first date of moving the writ application, passed an interim order to the effect that the existing arrangement regarding yearly allotment in favour of the writ petitioner for bringing common salt in its plant as contained in the programme for the year 2005-06 should continue until further order.
( 3 ) THE private respondent before us filed a writ application being W. P. No. 1190 of 2006 thereby praying for the following relief:
(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents and each of them to forthwith certify and transit to this hon'ble Court the records of the case culminating in the impugned threat not to allot the annual programme but to allot quarterly programme for bringing in common salt to the said plant of the petitioners, in violation of their earlier decision dated June 25, 1999 so that upon consideration thereof the same is quashed and conscionable justice is rendered to the petitioners;
(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them: (i) to allot the annual programme zone-wise but not quarterly programme for bringing in common salt to the said plant of the petitioners, in violation of their earlier decision dated June 25,1999; (ii) to desist from giving any effect or further effect to or acting in terms of or pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned threat not to allot the annual programme zone-wise but to allot quarterly programme for bringing in common salt to the said plant of the petitioners, in violation of their decision dated June 25, 1999 in any manner whatsoever: (iii) to comply with the decision dated June 25, 1999 of the High Power salt Committee and not to act in violation of the same; (c) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above; (d) If no cause or insufficient cause is shown, the Rule be made absolute;
(e) Injunction restraining the respondents and each of them whether by themselves or their subordinates, agent, men or otherwise howsoever to desist from giving any effect or further effect to or acting in terms of or pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned from, giving any effect or further effect to or acting in terms of or pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned threat not to allot the annual programme zone-wise but to allot quarterly programme for bringing in common salt to the said plant of the petitioners, in violation of their earlier decision dated June 25, 1999;
(f) Stay of operation of the impugned threat not to allot the annual programme but to allot quarterly programme for bringing in common sait to the said plant of the petitioners, in violation of their earlier decision dated June 25, 1999;
(g) Appropriate direction be given directing the respondents to comply with the decision of the High Power Salt Committee and to allot annual programme zone-wise to the petitioners; (h) Ad interim order in terms of prayers above; (i) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper. "
( 4 ) IN the said writ application, the State of West Bengal was made the respondent No. 1; Food Commissioner, Department of Food and Supplies, government of West Bengal was made respondent No. 2; the Director of Non-Cereal Essential Commodities, Government of West Bengal was made respondent No. 3; Salt Commissioner, Government of India and Assistant Salt commissioner were made respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively.
( 5 ) THE case made out by the writ petitioner may be su
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
