Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in refusing interim relief; the State's action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and interim relief was warranted despite the petitioner's delay.

Summary

Zenit Mataplast Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the allotment of 17 acres of land to Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. and another party, alleging that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation acted arbitrarily, with bias and favouritism, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court admitted the petition but refused interim relief, prompting an appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in denying interim relief in a case involving alleged arbitrariness and fundamental rights, and whether delay on the part of the petitioner could preclude such relief. Relying on principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the need to prevent a fait accompli, the Court held that the State's action was arbitrary and that interim relief could be granted even at a belated stage. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the interim order dated 21‑July‑2008 was directed to remain in force until the High Court decides the writ petition.

Issues considered

The High Court's refusal to grant interim relief in a writ petition alleging arbitrariness, bias and favouritism under Article 14.
Whether interim relief can be granted at a belated stage when the case involves fundamental rights and a risk of irretrievable injury.
Whether the delay of the petitioner in approaching the court bars the grant of interim relief.
Whether the land allotment by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation complied with the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and its regulations.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961s. 14, s. 15, s. 31

Subjects

interim reliefArticle 14arbitrarinessbiasfavouritismland allotmentfundamental rightstemporary injunctionstate authorityequality before law

Judgment

[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 403

ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2009)

~EPTEMBER 11, 2009
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

~ Interlocutory Order:

Writ petition against State instrumentality - Alleging c
discrimination, bias and favoritism in allotment of land -
Interim relief also sought - Petition admitted while interim
relief refused - On appeal, held: While deciding application
* for interim relief, in a case alleging arbitrariness, bias and
.J. favouritism, the court is required to form a tentative opinion 0
as to whether there is substance in those a/legations -If facts
of the case establish that the action of the State authority is
arbitrary and violative of mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution - Interim relief may be granted even at a belated
stage, if the case is based on fundamental rights - Interim E
relief was refused by High Court without assigning any reason
" - Delay on the part of the writ petitioner, in approaching the
._ court has also been explained - Writ petitioner deseNes to
be granted interim protection - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 14.
F
Interim relief - Grant of - When - Discussed.

Appellant filed a writ petition, alleging arbitrariness,
bias and favouritism, against respondent-Statutory
Authority as regards allotment of land. Appellant also G
~ sought interim relief. High Court admitted the petition, but
refused to grant interim relief. However, it directed to
expedite the hearing in the matter. Hence, the present
appeal against refusal of interim relief.
403 H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Every action of the State or its
instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and
above-board' but should be without any affection or
B aversion. It should neither be suggestive of
discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of
bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be
made by the application of known principle and rules and
in general such decision should be predictable and the
citizen should know where he stands. However, if a
C decision is taken without any principle or without any
rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis
to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.
[Para 20] [417-A-C]

o S. G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1967 )..
SC 1427; Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs. Kera/a Financial
Corporation AIR 1988 SC 157, relied on.

1.2. The action/order of the State or State
E instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fide as
it wou!d only be a case of colourable exercise of power.
The Rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. -I
[Para 21] [417-D]

l.R. Coelho (dead) by LRs vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR
F 2007 SC 861, relied on.

1.3. In a case, as in the instant case, when the
applicant approaches the court complaining against the
Statutory Authority alleging arbitrariness, bias or
G favouritism, the court, being custodian of law, must
examine the averments made in the application to form ~
a tentative opinion as to whether there is any substance
in those allegations. Such a course is also required to be
followed while deciding the application for interim relief.
H [Para 22] [417-G-H; 418-A]
I
;
.... ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 405
AND ORS.

'
2.1. Interim order is passed on the basis of prima A
facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed
""" as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo
till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter
does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli
before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory B
injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by
~·
violation of his right for which he could not be adequately
compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the
"' uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. [Para
23] [418-A-C] c
·- ...
Anand Prasad Agarwal/a vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad and Ors.
AIR 2001 SC 2367; State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694; Colgate
>
Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. AIR 1999 SC
... 3105, relied on. D

2.2. Grant of an interim relief in regard to the nature
and extent thereof depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case as no strait-jacket formula
can be laid down. There may be a situation wherein the E
defendant/respondent may use the suit property in such
a manner that the situation becomes irretrievable. In such
'-· a fact situation, interim relief should be granted. (Para 24]
[418-D-E]

M. Gurudas and Ors. vs. Rasaranjan and Ors. AIR 2006 F
SC 3275; Shridevi and Anr. vs. Muralidhar and Anr. (2007)
14 sec 721, relied on.

2.3. Grant of temporary injunction, is governed by
three basic principles, i.e. prima facie case, balance of G
convenience, and irreparable injury, which are required
to be considered in a proper perspective in the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. But it may not be
appropriate for any court to hold a mini trial at the stage
of grant of temporary injunction. [Para 25) (418-F·G] H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
"
A S.M. Dyechem Ltd. vs. Mis. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR ~
2000 SC 2114; Anand Prasad Agarwal/a vs. Tarkeshwar .....
Prasad and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2367, relied on.

2.4. Interim injunction should be granted by the court
after considering all the pros and cons of the case in a
B
given set of facts involved therein on the risk and
responsibility of the party, in case he looses the case, he
cannot take any advantage of the same. The order can
be passed on settled principles takiQg into account the ~

c three basic grounds i.e. prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss. [Para 32] [421-C-D] ,~

Dalpat Kumar and Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh and Ors. AIR
1993 SC 276; Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao
Raja Seth Hira Lal AIR 1962 SC 527; Deoraj vs. State of ...
D Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1975; All India Anna ~
Dravida · Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 452; Bombay Dyeing and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action
Group and Ors. (2005) 5 sec 61, relied on.
E 2.5. The delay in approaching the court is of course
a good ground for refusal of interim relief, but in
exceptional circumstances, where the case of a party is
based on fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution and there is an apprehension that suit
F property may be developed in a manner that it acquires
irretrievable situation, the court may grant relief even at
a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the
applicant has not been negligent in pursuing the case.
[Para 32] [421-D-E]
G
2.6. There has been a delay on the part of the +
appellant in approaching the court but the Court cannot
be oblivious of the fact that the appellant had been
approaching the authorities time and again for allotment
H
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 407
I
AND ORS.

of the land. Admittedly, the entire land had not been A
developed by the respondent No.4 till this court
entertained the Special Leave Petition and directed the
parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land
measuring 2 acres adjacent to the appellant's plot no.F-
15 vide order dated 21. 7.2008. Therefore, it is not the B
appellant alone, who is to be blamed for the delay. The
land had been allotted to the respondent No.4 in undue
haste and no development could take place therein for
more than two years of taking the possession of the land.
In such a fact-situation it is not correct to say that interim c
stay cannot be granted at a belated stage. [Para 35] [422-
E-G]

2.7. Anything done in undue haste can also be
termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. In the
instant case, the whole case of the appellant is based on D
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as according to
the appellant it has been a case of violation of equality
clause enshrined in Article 14, The facts of the case
clearly establish that the Corporation and the
Government proceeded in haste while considering the E
application of respondent No.4 which tantamount to
arbitrariness, thus violative of the mandate of Article 14
of the Constitution. Application of the appellant was
required to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned
order. Admittedly, no reason was assigned for rejecting F
the same. There is nothing on record to show as on what
date and under what circumstances, Plot nos.F-16 and
F-17 stood decarved and became part of the Open Space
No.9. The respondents could not furnish any explanation
as in what manner and under what circumstances, the G
+ Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has been made allotment of
land from plot no.F-16, (a part of Open Space No.9),
without change of user of the land. The respondent no.4
had not initially asked for 17 acres of land which has
H
408 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
•
A been allotted to it. There is nothing on record to show as ;.'
to why the land could not be disposed of by auction. All
these circumstances provide for basis to form a tentative
opinion that State and its instrumentalities have acted
affectionately in the case of respondent No.4. [Paras 33.
B and 34] [421-F-G-H; 422-A-D]
Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shi/pa Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs.
Devendra Kumar Jain and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 638;
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kama/ia >-~
-
and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1159, relied on
c
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1967 SC 1427 Relied on Para 20
AIR 1988 SC 157 Relied on Para 20 _.
D
AIR 2007 SC 861 Relied on Para 21 >.
(2009) 5 sec 694 Relied on Para 23
AIR 2001 SC 2'3t;'? Relied on Paras 23
and 25
E
AIR 2006 SC 3275 Relied on Para 24 ·

(2001) 14 sec 121 Relied on Para 24 · -+ /

AIR 2000 SC 2114 Relied on Para 25
F
AIR 1999 SC 3105 Relied on Para 26
AIR 1993 SC 276 Relied on Para 27
AIR 1962 SC 527 Relied on Para 28
G AIR 2004 SC 1975 Relied on Para 29
+
(2009) 5 sec 452 Relied on Para 30

(2005) 5 sec 61 Relied on Para 31

H
---f

ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 409
AND ORS.
;.
A (1995) 1 sec 638 Relied on Para 33 A

AIR 2004 SC 1159 Relied on Para 33

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6201 of 2009.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.2.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7245 of
~
2006.

Dushyant Dave, Udaya Kr. Sagar, Bina Madhavan,
Lawyer's Knit & Co., for the Appellant.
c
Shyam Divan, Bhaskar P. Gupta, Shruti Chaudhary, Swati
Sinha, Jayshree Singh, Asha Gopalan Nair, Fox Mandal & Co.,
.. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Vishal Gupta, Vikram Bajaj, Khaitan & Co.,
... Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary for the D
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
2. This appeal has been filed against the order of the
'
Bombay High Court dated 5.2.2008 rejecting the application
•' ~ for interim relief while admitting the Writ Petition No. 7245/2006
and expediting its hearing against the allotment of land by the
respondent No.2 in favour of respondents nos.4 and 5. F
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are
that appellant, a Private Ltd. Company, incorporated under the
provisions of Companies' Act 1956, is indulged in
manufacturing of press components, moulded components, soft
luggage, moulded luggage and other travel goods, tools, moulds G
-t
jigs, dies fixtures and other engineering goods and carrying its
business on a land measuring 4050 sq. meters on plot no.F-
18 in the Satpur industrial Estate, Nasik. The appellant
submitted an application dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P-3) for
allotment of 8000 sq. yards land frcl'Y'I the adjacent vacant land hi
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A on a prescribed form complying with other requirements. The .)...'
said application was rejected by the respondent no.2, the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as 'Corporation'), a Maharashtra Government
Undertaking constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra
B Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act). In fact,
the Corporation has powers and duties to make allotment of
land for industrial purposes. It appears that vide letter dated
14.3.2005 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra, the
)..
respondent no.4, Mis. Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd., a leading
c industrial Company, asked for providing pending dues of
incentives which were extended to it earlier. In the said letter it
was also pointed out that the respondent no.4 has entered into
a collaboration with automobile company Renault and intended •
to set up a joint venture for manufacturing of car, "The Logan"
into India and the said respondent was locating the project at "
D }:
Nasik (Maharashtra) or Zahirabad (Andhra Pradesh) or at any
other new place in Uttranchal. In the said letter, a demand for
land measuring 5 to 8 acres for parking facilities at Satpur
Industrial Estate, Nasik and 3 to 4 acres parking plot outside
the existing factory gate at Nasik was also included. The
E Government of Maharashtra vide letter dated 10.6.2005
promised that the respondent no. 2 - Corporation would provide
maximum possible vacant land in the existing area at the ~'
applicable rates and the Corporation would further facilitate
acquisition of additional land identified by the Corporation for
F its project as well as for locating the cluster of industrial units
(Annexure R.4/R.5). The Government of Maharashtra accorded
the status of "Mega Project" to the forthcoming project of
respondent no. 4 known as 'Logan Car Project' at Nasik vide
ietter dated 11.11.2005 (Annexure R.4/R.6). Respondent no. 4
G submitted an informal application dated 23.11.2005 to the
Respondent No. 2 to make the allotment of designated Open
Space, Plot Nos. 8 and 9, in its favour. The user of land was
changed from open space to Industrial Area vide resolution
dated 10.2.2006 and plot was renumbered as 126, instead of
H Open Space No.9, by the respondent-corporation. The formal
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 411'
AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

. application was submitted for that purpose by the respondent A
-\. no. 4 on 1.3.2006 to the respondent no. 2 (Annexure R.4/R.9).
Respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure R.4/
R.10), allotted the land measuring 17 acres in favour of the
respondent no. 4 for a total premium of 7,51, 14,600/- after
changing the user of the land from vacant space to industrial. B
On the same date, namely, 27.3.2006, the respondent no. 4
was put in possession of the said land and an agreement for
.., licence/lease was executed between respondent no. 2 and
respondent no. 4 on 3.7.2006. A part of open space was also
"" converted as a "parking space" and it was allotted in favour of c
respondent no.5 for parking of vehicles.

4. The appellant made various representations to the
Respondent No. 2, Corporation particularly, dated 15.3.2006,
3.4.2006, 25.8.2006, 3.10.2006 and 10.10.2006, pointing out
,. "' that rejection of its application and allotment of huge area of · D
J..
land in favour of respondent Nos .4 and 5 was discriminatory
and violative of laws and particularly the statutory requirement
which provided for allotment of land to the neighbouring unit
holders. The appellant asked that it may be allotted some part
of the remaining land from the designated vacant land whose E
land user has been converted from open space to industrial
Area. As no order was passed on its representations, the
appellant filed the writ petition in October 2006 before the High
Court. However, the Court admitted the writ petition, expedited
the hearing of the writ petition but rejected the application for F
interim relief. Hence, this appeal.

5. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant has submitted that the application of the
appellant has been rejected without assigning any reason
G
whatsoever and probably the reason may be that on the date
+ of passing the order the land was merely a designated vacant
land and not meant for industrial purpose. However, in order
to favour the respondent No.4, a big industrial house, the State
authorities passed the directions to the respondent-Corporation
H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A to allot open space after change of user. Application of
respondent no.4 was processed in haste and all consequential J'
orders have been passed within a very short span of time. Land
has been allotted to Respondent No.4 on the direction of the
higher authorities, which is not permissible in law. Thus, such
B a course is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition filed by the appellant would become infructuous,
if the respondent no.4 is permitted to develop the allotted land.
The High Court ought to have granted the interim relief.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
...
>
c 6. On the contrary, Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted that
there had been large number of offers by various States to
Respondent No.4 to set up the industry for the purpose of
production of cars/jeeps and various incentives were offered,
D particularly, by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra ;..

Pradesh. However, as it has several units in Maharashtra, the ~
respondent No.4 made application to the Hon'ble the Chief
Minister for allotment of land and after considering_ the facts, it
was decided to make the allotment of land at Satpur Industrial
E Estate Nasik, as the appellant was having about four other units
in close vicinity thereof. It is also submitted by Shri Gupta that
no law has been violated and the authorities proceeded strictly
in conformity with the statutory requirements. Respondent no.4
has already invested a huge amount in the project. Appellant
F did not approach the High Court promptly. Thus, the High Court
has rightly refused to grant the interim relief. Impugned order
does not require any interference.

7. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent-Corporation has submitted that when the
G
application of the appellant was rejected, the land in dispute
was a designated vacant land and therefore, it could not be ~
allotted for any industrial purpose. The land was allotted to the
respondent no.4 after change of user, considering the
requirement of respondent No.4 and taking into consideration
H
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 413
AND ORS. [DR B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

various other factors, particularly, the development of the city A
"'~ keeping in mind that the industry of respondent No.4 would
provide job to large number of persons and the people of the
-f local area would be benefitted otherwise also. Appellant cannot
be heard complaining against the allotment in dispute, as it is
i
in consonance with all the statutory requirements. Interim relief 8
' could not be granted at a belated stage as the appellant had
not filed the petition before the High Court immediately after
. allotment of the land. Thus, the interim application has rightly
been rejected by the High Court.. The appeal has no merit, thus
-· liable to be dismissed. c
_,, 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
~
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

. '
"').
9. It is evident from the site plan that a large number of plots
had been carved out from the huge area of land,and in between,
an open vacant space being No.9 was left. It is also evident
from the said site plan that after plot Nos. F-13, F-14 and F-
D

15, there was a vacant space and then, plot Nos. F-18, F-19
-l etc. Thus, there must have been/ plot Nos. F-16 and F-17
~ between plot nos.F-15 and F-18, at one stage. The land in E
dispute was adjacent to said two plots also. The appellant had
demanded the land from Plot Nos. F-16 and F-17. However,
\- there is nothing on record to show as to how these two plots
I'
bearing Nos. F-16 and F-17 could disappear from the site plan
and become part of Open Space No.9. F
10. Application of the appellant has been rejected vide
order dated 19.12.2005 without assigning any reason and it
cannot be said as to whether the application was rejected
merely on the ground that the land in dispute, at that time was
a designated vacant land and not meant for the industrial G

'- purpose, thus, its application could not be entertained. On the
i contrary, admittedly in the year 2004, a part Plot No. F-17
(vacant space) measuring about 500 Sq.Mtrs. had been
allotted to BSNL without the change of the user. No explanation
could be furnished by the respondents as to under what H
,.._
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A circumstances such an allotment was permissible. ,._,.
11. So far as the allotment to respondent No.4 is
concerned, this had been under the directions of the State
i'
Government to the Corporatic;m. The Corporation changed the .'•
B land user and made the allotment of land to the extent of 17
acres and the possession had been handed over immediately.
The license deed had been executed and all the proceedings
had been taken in close proximity of time. Letter written by
respondent No.4 dated 14th March, 2005 (Annexure R4/4) to
...
,1.
the Hon'ble Chief Minister suggests that some other States had
c offered the respondent No.4 various incentives for establishing
an industrial unit. It is evident from the letter dated 10th June,
"°
2005 (Annexure R4/5) written by ttie Secretary to the Ministry
of Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Maharashtra to
the Respondent No.4 that the State Government was willing to ,,.
D make various concessions and provide incentives including the '+-
)t-
allotment of land at Nasik for establishment of LOGAN cars
project. ;.
;
12. The allotment of land is governed by the provisions of r-

E 1961 Act, Section 14 of which specifies the functions and
r
powers of the Corporation and the Corporation has, in general
power to promote and assist in the rapid and orderly
establishment growth and development of industries in the State
of Maharashtra. Section 15 thereof provides for general power
+ \

F of the Corporation which includes the power to acquire and hold
the land and to dispose of the same by executing the lease,
sale deeds, exchange or otherwise transfer any property.
Section 31 of the 1961 Act, provides for acquisition and
I'-
disposal of the land. I

G 13. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ~
(Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1975 have been framed to give ~~

effect to the provisions of 1961 Act. Regulation 4 provides for
f'
disposal of the land covered by the lay out prepared by the
Corporation by public auction or by entertaining individual
H applications. Regulation 6 provides for a particular form to be
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA415
AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
1'~ A
filled up where the allotment is to be made by applications and
deposit of process fee etc. Regulation 10 provides that the
Land Committee shall consider the application and pass
appropriate orders for allotment of land.

14. Government of Maharashtra had issued a Circular B
dated 25th January, 1994 regarding fixation of rate of industrial
area in which allotment of plot has to be made by inviting
tenders. Clause 4 thereof provided for "preferential right" of the
" unit holder for having allotment of "neighbouring land" for the
purpose of factory expansion. It also provides that where there
are more than one application for allotment, the plot may be
c
disposed of by adopting the tender process.

15. There had been claims and counter claims by the
. ... parties. The appellant claimed that it had preferential right for
-,( allotment of the part of the vacant land for expansion of its D ',

factory. However, its application has been rejected without
giving any reason whatsoever, though the law requires giving
the reasons for passing any order and the allotment in favour
of respondent No.4 was passed in undue haste showing
favouritism being a big industrial unit. The right of equality E
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution stood violated.
~ The application of the appellant had been made prior to the
application made by respondent No.4. The respondent No.4
instead of making application to the Corporation started
negotiations with the Government directly for allotment of land F
merely by writing a letter in June, 2005 and on 10th June, 2005
an understanding was arrived in between the Government of
~
Maharashtra and respondent No.4 of commissioning of the
Project at Nasik. The informal application was filed by
respondent No.4 on 23.11.2005 for making allotment of land
G
~- from Open Space No.9. The application of respondent No.4
was processed by Land Allotment Committee on 22nd
December, 2005, wherein the observation was made that it was
an important industry for the city land and its expansion would
greatly benefit the industrial growth in Nasik.
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ...

A 16. The user of land in Open Space No.9 was converted ;.."'
from Open Space to Industrial Area vide order/resolution dated
10th February, 2006 and it was re-numbered as Plot No.126.
The first formal application was submitted by the respondent
no.4 to the respondent-corporation only on 1.3.2006 and the
a allotment was made in favour of the respondent No.4 on
27.3.2006. Respondent no.4 was put in possession on
27.3.2006 itself. The license agreement was executed by the
respondent corporation in favour of respondent no.4 on July 3,
~
2006. The demand of respondent No.4 had not been to the
c extent the area had been allotted.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the sole
question has arisen as to whether the High Court was justified
in not granting the interim relief in favour of the appellant?
,.
D 17. Records reveal that the appellant had been bargaining .~ ""
with the respondent-Corporation making application after
application for allotment of land from remaining vacant area and
approached the Court at some belated stage. Even before the
High Court the matter remained pending for long before it was
E admitted and the application for interim relief was rejected.
18. The Regulation 1975 provides for allotment of land by
public auction or by entertaining individual applications. + J
'>.---
\
>---
Therefore, the question does arise as to-whether without taking
a decision that land is to be settled by negotiation, the process
F of auction or calling the tender can be dispensed with.

19. In the instant case the appellant had been asking the t
respondent no.2 to grant the lease of plot nos.F-16 and F-17,
which had earlier not been the part of the Open Space No.9,
G on the basis of being contiguous and adjacent to the
~
appellant's existing factory at plot no.F-18. It has been
canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the action of the
respondent no.2 is arbitrary and unreasonable and not in
conformity with the statutory provisions.
H
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 417
AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.j
. ~ 20. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should A
not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be
without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive
of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of
bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be made
by the application of known principle and rules and in general B
such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know

- -.),
where he is, but if a decision is taken without any principle or
without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is
antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of
law (vide S.G.Jaisinghani vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1967 'C
SC 1427; Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs. Kera/a Financial
Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157).

21. In essence, the action/order of the State or State
""' instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fide as it
J would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. The Rule D
of Law is the foundation of a democratic society. In l.R. Coelho
(dead) by LRs vs. Sta_te of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861, the
Apex Court held as under:-

"The State is to deny no one equality before the E
law........ Economic growth and social equity are the two
~ pillars of our Constitution which are linked to the right of
an individual (right to equal opportunity), rather than in the
abstract. ...... Equality, rule of law, judicial review and
separation of powers form parts of the basic structure of F
the Constitution. Each of these concepts are intimately
connected. There can be no rule of law, if there is no
equality before the law. These would be meaningless if the
violation was not subject to the judicial review."

. Court22.complaining
In a case like this, when the applicant approaches the G
against the Statutory Authority alleging
arbitrariness, bias or favouritism, the court, being custodian of
law, must examine the averments made in the application to
form a tentative opinion as to whether there is any substance
in those allegations. Such a course is also required to be H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A followed while deciding the application for interim relief. j/'

23. Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie
findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed as a
temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter
is decided finally, to ensure that the matter does not become
B
either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The
object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff
against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be
...
_\;-
adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action
if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. (vide
c Anand Prasad Agarwal/a vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors. AIR
2001 SC 2367; and State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U.
Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694)

24. Grant of an interim relief in regard to the nature and ,,,
D extent thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of ,)...
each case as no strait-jacket formula can be laid down. There
may be a situation wherein the defendant/respondent may use
the suit property in such a manner that the situation becomes
irretrievable. In such a fact situation, interim relief should be
E granted (vide M. Gurudas & Ors. vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. AIR
2006 SC 3275; and Shridevi & Anr. vs. Mura/idhar & Anr.
(2001) 14 sec 121.
+ ,

25. Grant of temporary injunction, is governed by three
basic principles, i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience;
F and irreparable injury, which are required to be considered in
a proper perspective in the facts and circumstances of a
particular case. But it may not be appropriate for any court to
hold a mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction
(Vide S.M. Dyechem Ltd. vs. Mis. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR
G 2000 SC 2114; and Anand Prasad Agarwal/a (supra).
~

, 26, In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever
Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3105, this court observed that the other
considerations which ought to weigh with the Court hearing the
H application or petition for the grant of injunctions are as below:
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 419
AND ORS. [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

(i) Extent of damages being an adequate remedy; A
.. A
(ii) Protect the plaintiffs interest for violation of his rights
though however having regard to the injury that may be
suffered by the defendants by reason therefor ;

(iii) The court while dealing with the matter ought not to B
ignore the factum of strength of one party's case being
stronger than the others;

(iv) No fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter
of grant of injunction but on the facts and circumstances c
of each case- the relief being kept flexible;

(v) The issue is to be looked from the point of view as to
whether on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer
irreparable loss ·and injury keeping in view the strength of
the parties' case; ·· 0

(vi) Balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be
considered as an important requirement even if there is a
serious question or prima facie case in support of the
grant; E

(vii) Whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely
~i affect the interest of general public which can or cannot be
compensated otherwise."

27. In Dalpat Kumar&Anr. vs. Prah/ad Singh & Ors., AIR F
1993 SC 276, the Supreme Court explained the scope of
aforesaid material circumstances, but observed as under:-

"The phrases 'prima facie case', 'balance of
convenience' and ' irreparable loss' are not rhetoric G
phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, .
to meet myriad situations presented by man's ingenuity in
given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with
sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of
justice. The facts rest eloquent and speak for themselves. H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A It is well nigh impossible to find from facts prima facie case
;.~
and balance of convenience."
~

28. This Court in Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur
Rao Raja Seth Hira Lal, AIR 1962 SC 527 held that the civil
court has a power to grant interim injunction in exercise of its
B
inherent jurisdiction even if the case does not fall within the ambit
of provisions of Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure.

29. In Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2004
)t-
SC 1975, this Court considered a case where the courts below
c had refused the grant of interim relief. While dealing with the
appeal, the Court observed that ordinarily in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution, this Court does
not interfere with the orders of interim nature passed by the
High Court. However, this rule of discretion followed in practice
,,,.
D is by way of just self-imposed restriction. An irreparable inji:Jry
which forcibly tilts the balance in favour of the applicant, may Jr
persuade the Court even to grant an interim relief though it may
amount to granting the final relief itself. The Court held as under:-

"The Court would grant such an interim relief only if
E
satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience
of the court and do violence to the sense of justice,
resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the
hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to
-r
vindicate the cause of justice."
F
30. Such a course is permissible when the case of the
applicant is based on his fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India. (vide All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
G (2009) 5 sec452)
~
31. In Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs.
Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. (200£) 5 SCC
61, this Court observed as under:-

H "The courts, however, have to strike a balance between two
.. ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 421
AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

extreme positions viz. whether the writ petition would itself A
...A become infructuous if interim order is refused, on the one
.. hand, and the enormity of losses and hardships which may
be suffered by others if an interim order is granted,
particularly having regard to the fact that in such an event,
the losses sustained by the affected parties thereby may 8
not be possible to be redeemed."

- -i
32. Thus, the law on the issue emerges to the effect that
interim injunction should be granted by the Court after
considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of
c
.. facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party
or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage
of the same. The order can be passed on settled principles
taking into account the three basic grounds i.e. prima facie
.. case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The delay
in approaching the Court is of course a good ground for refusal D
·~
of interim relief, but in exceptional circumstances, where the
case of a party is based on fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution and there is an apprehension that suit
property may be developed in a manner that it acquires
irretrievable situation, the Court may grant relief even at a E
belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the applicant
has not been negligent in pursuing the case .
...i
33. Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as
arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. (Vide Madhya F
Pradesh Hasta Shi/pa Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Devendra Kumar
Jain & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 638; and Bahadursinh Lakhubhai
Gohi/ vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1159).

34. If the instant case is considered, in the light of the above
settled legal propositions and admittedly the whole case of the G
/r. appellant is based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
as according to the appellant it has been a case of violation of
equality clause enshrined in Article 14, the fact$ mentioned
hereinabove clearly establish that the Corporation and the
Government proceeded in haste while considering the H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
l
'

A application of respondent No.4 which tantamount to
arbitrariness, thus violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the · A_'"
Constitution. Application of the appellant was required to be ,,
disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. Admittedly, no
reason was assigned for rejecting the same. There is nothing
8 on record to show as on what date and under what
circumstances, Plot nos.F-16 and F-17 stood decarved and
became part of the Open Space No.9. The respondents could
not furnish any explanation as in what manner and under what
circumstances, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. has been made ,,,...
.-
c allotment of land from plot no.F-16, (a part of Open Space
No.9), without change of user of the land. The respondent no.4
had not initially asked for 17 acres of land which has been
allotted to it. There is nothing on record to show as to why the
land could not be disposed of by auction. All these
D
circumstances provide for basis to form a tentative opinion that ,.
State and its instrumentalities have acted affectionately in the ~·
case of respondent no.4.

35. Undoubtedly, there has been a delay on the part of the
appellant in approaching the court but we cannot be oblivious
E of the fact that the appellant had been approaching the
authorities time and again for allotment of the land. Admittedly,
the entire land had not been developed by the respondent no.4
till this Court entertained the Special Leave Petition and -.r·
directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the
F land measuring 2 acres adjacent to the appellant's plot no.F-
15 vide order dated 21.7.2008. Therefore, it is not only the
appellant who is to be blamed for the delay. The land had been
allotted to the respondent no.4 in undue haste and no
development could take place therein for more than two years
G of taking the possession of the land. In such a fact-situation the
submission made on behalf of the respondents that interim stay
cannot be granted at a belated.stage or is preposterous.

36. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that
the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. In
H
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 423
AND ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
)

the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order A
passed by this Court on 21.7.2008 shall continue in operation
till the writ petition is decided by the High Court. The Hon'ble
High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition
expeditiously. Needless to say that any observation made
herein either on facts or on law shall not adversely effect the ·9
case of either of the parties, for the reason that the only question
before this Court has been as to whether the appellant
deserves to be granted interim protection till his writ petition is
decided by the High Court.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
c
K.K.T. . Appeal disposed of.

-