Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA,N.D.OJHA
Nanak Chand Khanna - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 12/12/1973
INJUNCTION - GRANT OF INJUNCTION - CONDITIONS - PRIMA FACIE CASE AND BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - TRANSFER OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEE - VALIDITY OF TRANSFER ORDER - GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE - NO PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE OUT - INJUNCTION NOT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
A railway employee challenged the validity of his transfer order on various grounds, including safety concerns, violation of Railway Board orders, and discrimination. He filed a suit for a declaration that the transfer orders were illegal and for an injunction restraining the Railway authorities from implementing those orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case in support of his challenge to the transfer order. The court found that the grounds raised by the plaintiff, such as safety concerns, violation of Railway Board orders, and discrimination, had no substance. The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favor the grant of an injunction, as the plaintiff failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not issued.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case in support of his challenge to the transfer order? 2. Whether the balance of convenience favored the grant of an injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To obtain an injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case and demonstrate that the balance of convenience is in their favor. 2. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case as the grounds raised in the challenge to the transfer order lacked substance. 3. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favor the grant of an injunction as the plaintiff failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not issued.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the quashing of the interim injunction order issued by the lower courts.
S. CHANDRA, J. :- The appellant was employed as a booking clerk in the North-Eastern Railway. In January, 1961 he was transferred to Deoria. On 13th October 1969, the Divisional Superintendent passed an order transferring him to Haldharpur Flag Station in the district of Ballia. The appellant made a representation whereupon this order was modified on 12th May, 1970, and instead, he was transferred to Katka Flag Station in the Varanasi Division. The appellant filed a suit in the court of the Additional Munsif, Deoria for a declaration that the two transfer orders were illegal, and for an injunction restraining the Railway authorities from implementing those orders, or from transferring the plaintiff to any other flag station. Along with the plaint the appellant filed an application for an ad interim injunction. The learned Munsif issued an ad interim injunction as prayed. The Railway authorities put in appearance and filed objections to the injunction. On 4th December, 1971, the learned Munsif confirmed the ex parte injunction order. The defendants went up in appeal, but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Deoria on 4th April, 1973.
2. The defendants thereupon instituted a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge held that it was incumbent upon the civil court to have found that there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. This was not done. The issuance of the injunction was, hence, illegal. Merely because the balance of convenience was, in the opinion of the civil Courts, in favour of the plaintiff, was not sufficient to merit the grant of an injunction. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and the interim injunction order issued by the courts below was quashed.
3. It is well settled that an injunction can be granted only if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in his favour. The two conditions must co-exist before an order of injunction can be passed. It has also been held that orders of injunction are issued in rare cases. In Badri Prasad v. Chhokhey Lal (AIR 1926 All 406 at p. 408) it was observed that cases in which either an attachment or an injunction ought to be issued before judgement, are extremely rare, and the plaintiff ought to be able to satisfy the court of the practical certainty of success, and of the existence of grave danger and of a real fear that a dishonest defendant undoubtedly liable, is making away with the probable fruits of the judgement.
The view of the learned District Judge that he will not express any opinion on the question whether there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, because expression of opinion on that point might cause prejudice to either party during the trial of the suit, discloses palpable ignorance of the true legal position. Without a finding that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, an order of injunction cannot validly be passed. If in order to determine whether there is a prima facie case, an opinion has to be expressed on any controversial question, the same cannot be avoided on the plea that it might prejudice either of the parties. An expression of opinion at this stage of the case cannot possibly prejudice the parties at the hearing of the suit, because it is an expression of opinion on the materials then available on the record.
4. The plaintiff did not allege in the plaint that he had a right to remain posted at Deoria, or that in law the defendants were not entitled to transfer him. He challenged the order of transfer on a variety of grounds. One was that the order of transfer had not taken into consideration the safety of the plaintiff's life in the light of past history. The past history was that the appellant was involved in a murder case in which he was acquitted. Such an involvement was, in our opinion, irrelevant to the question whether he should permanently be posted at Deoria, or should be transferred to some other station. Moreover,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.