SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Raj) 1338

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Madan, J.
Deendayal & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
R.S.E.B. & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Revision Pejltion No. 1376 of 1999.
Decided On : 28-07-2000

Advocates:
For the Petitioner-Plaintiff:Mr. N.K. Maloo, Advocate.
For the Respondent-Defendants 7 & 8:Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent-Defendants 9 & 10:Mr. Akhil Simlote, Advocate.
For the Respondent-Defendants 5 & 6:Mr. K.N. Gupta, Advocate.

The court emphasized the importance of exceptional circumstances or 'jurisdictional error' for the maintainability of a suit challenging the validity of an order passed under a statute.

Headnote:

Electricity Connection - Disputed Ice Factory Establishment - Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 - [Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974] - The court discussed the hazardous aspect of setting up an Ice Factory in a residential colony and the statutory provisions violated by the defendant. The court also considered the legal provisions and case laws related to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunctions against the establishment of an Ice Factory in a residential area, citing health hazards and statutory violations. The trial court rejected the application for temporary injunction, which was partly allowed by the appellate court. The plaintiffs filed a revision petition against the appellate court's judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the essential requirements under relevant laws to set up an Ice Factory had been completed by the defendants. It refrained from expressing any opinion on the validity of the orders and permissions issued by the relevant departments, as the suit was pending final adjudication.

Issues: The issues involved the violation of statutory provisions, jurisdiction, and maintainability of the suit, as well as the grant of temporary injunction in a suit for mandatory or perpetual injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit is maintainable only where exceptional circumstances are established or where 'jurisdictional error' on the part of the authority vested with the power under a statute is established on record. It refrained from interfering with the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition.

Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the appellate court was upheld. The trial court was directed to expeditiously decide the suit within six months.

JUDGMENT

1. - The petitioners (plaintiffs) have preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 20.5.99 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar in Civil Misc. Appeal No.21/98 by which the appeal was partly allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court (Civil Judge (JD) Laxmangarh) but granting liberty to the defendant Nos. 7 & 8 (respondent Nos. 7 & 8) to take electricity connection at the disputed "Nohra" for running establishment of Ice Factory through defendant No.1 to 4, provided they (defendant Nos. 7 & 8) would take prior permission in the form of No Objection Certificate from the defendant Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short the Board) under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (for short "Pollution Control Act") and unless such NOC is granted they were restrained by temporary injunction from carrying on business of Ice Factory till disposal of the suit.

2. The petitioners (plaintiffs) are residents of Ward No.13 & 14 of Laxmangarh town. The dispute arose when the defendant No.7 & 8 (Shokat Ali & Pawan Kumar Kachhwal) by converting their residential plot in question into commercial premises and taking 50 HP electricity connection thereat, without consent of their co-sharers wanted to establish an Ice Factory in a thickly populated area of residential colony after having been successful in getting No Objection Certificate dated 4.3.98 from the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 (Municipal Board Authority) in violation of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. It is the plaintiffs' case that no permission from the defendant Nos. 9 & 10 (Pollution Control Board Authority) has been taken and that since the ammonia gas used in the Ice Factory is harmful for human beings as it affects their health in several ways, inasmuch as, heavy power electricity connection would vibrate the houses adjoining the factory besides generator used would cause air & water pollution in the form of public nuisance. Thus, in these circumstances the petitioners (plaintiffs) prayed for mandatory injunction & perpetual injunction for restraining (1) the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (Electricity Board Authorities) from giving high power electricity connection and (2) the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 (Municipal Authorities) from giving permission for converting residential premises to commercial one; (3) defendant Nos. 9 & 10 (Pollution Control Authority) from giving water connection to the defendant Nos. 7 & 8 for setting up the proposed Ice Factory in the residential locality area. Mandatory injunction was also sought from the Civil Court for restraining the defendant Nos. 9 & 10 from permitting the defendant Nos. 7 & 8 to establish the proposed Ice Factory, in the area in question.

3. Alongwith suit an application for temporary injunction was also moved to the same effect. Reply was filed by the defendant No.7 denying the facts stated by the plaintiffs in their T.I. applications and replication. The defendant Nos. 5 & 6 so also Nos. 1 to 4 have filed separate replies stating that conversion charges have been deposited by defendant No.7 after obtaining NOC and requisite permission under Factories & Boilers Department to establish the Ice Factory and the electric connection has also been given.

4. The trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction by its judgment dated 27.5.98, against which the plaintiffs preferred misc. appeal before the appellate Court. The appeal was partly allowed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this revision petition.

5. During the course of hearing, Shri N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the plaintiffs (petitioners) contended that the Courts below have failed to consider hazardous aspect involved in setting up an Ice Factory in a residential colony since ammonia gas being deployed in running of Ice Factory is hazardous substance to the residents of the locality and keeping in view the safety of the residents, permission for setting up ice factory should not be granted because the ammonia


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top