The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in granting injunctions, and the need for expeditious disposal of fresh license applications in accordance with the law and the directions of the Apex Court.

Rajesh Tandon, J.

1. Heard Sri P.C. Kandpal for the petitioners and Sri N. C. Gupta and Sri S. S. Adhikari for the respondent State.

2. The aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed against the order refusing to grant injunction by both the Courts-below. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petitions are that the petitioners are running a small scale industries at Vikas Nagar, Dehradun and they have installed a woodcutter machine of 3 H.P. for the last 10 years. They have alleged that their industries were registered on 3rd of October 2001. According to the petitioners when they started the business there was no such restrictions and. as such. he has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioners in respect of three-horse power butter machine.

3. During the pendency of the suit applications for interim injunction under Order XXXIX. Rule 1 CPC were also filed in all the suits. The trial Court on the application of the petitioners passed the order on 7th of October 2002 rejecting the applications. The injunction has been refused on the ground that the petitioners have no cause of action to file the suit or claiming the injunction in as much as at present they have no license and, as such, no injunction can be grated.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners went in appeal being appeal No. 16 of 2003 arising out of suit No. 725 of 2002. appeal No. 15 of 2003 arising out of 0. S. No. 707 of 2002 and appeal No. 07 of 2003 arising out of Suit No. 727 of 2002.

5. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions against the orders passed in appeal. The State has already filed a counter-affidavit. Counsel for the petitioners have stated that their saw mill was installed before coming into force of Aara Mill Rules. 1978, i.e., Aara Mill Stahapana Aur Viniyaman Niyamawali, 1978. However;, the amended Rule has been produced by the Standing counsel dated 26th June 1.998 where the definition of Section 2 (a), which was amended, reads as under:

'AARA MILL' KA TAPTARYA IMARATI LAKARI AUR ANYS LAKAR1 KO KATANE, CHEERANE YA USE TUKARAUN ME PARIWARTIT KARNE YA TATSADRAYSA KARYAUN KO PRAYOJANARTHY VIDYUT. SHAKTI. 1DHAN SHAKTI YA JANSHAKTI SE PAHALE WALE KISEE YANTRIK SADHAN SE HAIN AUR ISME URAYUKTH BHEE SAMILIT HAIN KINTU ISMDE YASE YANTRIK SADHAN JISKE INJINE KEE SHAMTA 3 HORSE POWER TAK HO SAMLET NAHIN HONGE."

6. The injunction orders have been refused by the two Courts-below on the ground that the petitioners at present have no valid license to run the saw mill. Therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of all the petitioners.

7. The principles contained under Order 39, Rule 1 CPC cannot be applied in such a case where the petitioners have no valid license at present. The Full Bench decision reported in, AIR 1991 All 114 has interpreted the scope of Order 39, Rule 1 CPC. As well as interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"In our opinion, although every interlocutory order passed in a civil suit is not subject to review under Article 226 of the Constitution but if it is found from the order impugned that fundamental principle of law has been violated and further such an order causes substantial injustice to the party aggrieved".

8. The grant of injunction as contained under Order 39, Rule I C.P.C. has been interpreted in AIR 2002 SC 2598 where the Apex Court has held that it is while exercising discretion of the Court in the grant of interim injection the following test has to be applied. (Paras 7 to 9, 11 and 12).

"It is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the legal proceeding is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the Court. While exercising the discretion the Court normally applies the following tests :

i) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case;

ii) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff;

iii) Whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable in