2011 Supreme(Guj) 415

2011 (3) GCD 2006 (Guj)
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Abhilasha Kumari
Lyka Labs Ltd.
Versus
Union of India - Through Secretary & Ors.
Civil Application-for Interim Relief No. 6923 of 20111—Decided on 08/07/2011

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case applicant is entitled to relief deseal factory and allow to operate.

Headnote:Head Note :

       Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1995) — Drug (Price Control) Orders (DPCO), 1970 (Repealed on 31 March 1979), DPCO, 1979 (Repealed on 26 August, 1987), Section 7(2), DPCO, 1987 (Repealed on 07 January, 1995) — Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 — Sections 150(b), 153, 153(a) and (b), 154, 165, 166 and 200 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 19(1)(g), 226 and 300-A — Raising of demand by respondents Sealing of factory after due notices under the Code — Writ petition filed against and pending decision — Application for interim relief — Seeking relief to deseal the factory and allow to operate — Scope of — Finding as to — The applicant was informed by respondents through notice dated 08.06.2011 that factory would be closed in the process of recovery as arrears of land revenue — If by closer of factory today 300 workers have been rendered jobless it is the applicant alone that is responsible for the situation — It is not open for the applicant at this stage to shelter behind such plea — Besides Court observed that if mandatory interim relief as sought by the applicant is granted it would virtually amount to allowing the writ petition and negating the demand made by respondents by rendering at naught the entire proceedings under the Code — It is settled law that where matters of public revenue are concerned it is of utmost importance release that inform orders ought not to be granted merely because a prima facie case has been shown — More is required — There should be balance of convenience in favour of applicant and there should not be the slightest indication of a likelihood of prejudice to the public interest — In this view of the matter applicant has not been able to establish prima facie case for relief sought by him.

       Held :

       From the entire factual background of the case and a scrutiny of the provisions of law applicable, including those of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, prima facie, no such grave violation of law, as alleged is apparent, so as to warrant the grant of mandatory interim relief to the applicant. The amount under demand, inclusive of interest has now reached the enormous figure of about nineteen crores. The initial demand has been made on 10-07-1990, and proceedings for recovery of the demand as arrears of land revenue have been intimated on 17-12-2005, culminating in the sealing of the Factory of the applicant, pursuant to the notice dated 08-06-2011.

        [Para 18]

       In the above context, if mandatory interim relief as sought for by the applicant is granted, it would virtually amount to allowing the writ petition and negating the demand made by the respondents, by rendering at naught, the entire proceedings under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. [Para 21]

       The applicant does not succeed in establishing a prime facie case. Similarly, the balance of convenience does not tilt in its favour. In view of the fact that the applicant can deposit the demanded amount even today, which can be refunded to it with interest at the rate of 15% in case it succeeds in the petition, it cannot be said that the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss. [Para 25]

       Another aspect that cannot be ignored is that the demand is a very old one, having been made as far back as in the year 1990. The proceedings under the Bombay Land Revenue Code have been initiated in the year 2005. The total demand from the applicant, inclusive of interest, is almost Rupees nineteen crores which is, by no means, a small amount. More important, it is public money that is due to the first respondent, unless otherwise ruled by a Court of law. Considering the above aspects which also include the amount of public interest as well, no prima facie case can be said to exist in favour of the applicant in order to grant mandatory interim relief and restore the status-quo ante. [Para 26]

       Law Laid Down :

       Where matters of public revenue are concerned interim relief ought not to be granted merely because a prima facie case has been shown — More is required.

       Case Law Analysis :

       Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133 [Para 4(a)];; Bishan Das vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570 [Para 4(d)];; Meghmala vs. G. Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383 [Para 4(d)];; Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117 [Para 4(f)].—Distinguished

       Union of India vs. Cynamide India Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1802 [Para 6(m)];; Mukesh Kishanpuria vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 (2) GLH 200 [Para 6(n)];; Corporation Bank vs. Saraswati Abharansala, (2009) 1 SCC 540 [Para 6(o)];; A.M. Choksi vs. S.V.S. Bank Ltd., 1998 (1) GLR 154 [Para 9];; R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd., (1977) (4) SCC 98 [Para 9];; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57 [Para 9];; Chhotalal V. Kakkad vs. State of Gujarat, 1973 GLR 279 [Para 9];; Union of India vs. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349 [Para 9];; Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 330 [Para 17];; Titaghur Paper Mills Co.Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603 [Para 17];; Union of India vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1264 [Para 17].—Relied on