REPORTABLE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                   OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18934 of 2008)

Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. ….Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.  

1. Leave granted.

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.   

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  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 from the  

adjacent  vacant  land  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 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  

2

no.4, M/s. Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd., a leading 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  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  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 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 letter dated 11.11.2005 (Annexure R.4/R.6).  Respondent no. 4  

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  

3

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  

Open Space  No.9,  by  the  respondent-corporation.  The formal  application  

was submitted for that purpose by the respondent 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.  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  

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 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  

4

appellant asked that it may be allotted some part of the remaining land from  

the designated vacant land whose 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  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 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 to allot open space after change of user.  Application of  

respondent no.4 was processed in haste and all  consequential 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 a course is violative of  

5

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.  

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, 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  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  did not  approach the High  

6

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  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 various other  

factors, particularly, the development of the city keeping in mind that the  

industry of respondent No.4 would provide job to large number of persons  

and  the  people  of  the  local  area  would  be  benefitted  otherwise  also.  

Appellant cannot be heard complaining against the allotment in dispute, as it  

is in consonance with all the statutory requirements.  Interim relief 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.  

7

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-15, there was a vacant space and then,  plot Nos. F-

18, F-19 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 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 bearing Nos. F-16 and F-17 could disappear from the site plan and  

become part of Open Space No.9.   

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  

purpose,  thus, its application could not be entertained.   On the contrary,  

admittedly in the year 2004, a part Plot No. F-17 (vacant space) measuring  

8

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  

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  Government  to  the  Corporation.  The  

Corporation changed the 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 the Hon’ble Chief Minister suggests that  

some other States had 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 the Secretary to the Ministry of Industries,  

Energy and Labour Department, Maharashtra to the Respondent No.4 that  

the State Government  was willing to make various concessions and provide  

incentives  including  the  allotment  of  land  at  Nasik  for  establishment  of  

LOGAN  cars project.  

9

12. The allotment  of  land  is  governed  by the  provisions  of  1961 Act,  

Section 14 of which specifies the functions and 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  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  disposal of the land.  

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 disposal of the land covered by the lay  

out  prepared  by  the  Corporation   by  public  auction  or  by entertaining  

individual applications. Regulation 6 provides for a particular form to be  

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.

10

14. Government of Maharashtra had issued a Circular 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 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 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  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 merely by writing a letter in  

June, 2005 and on 10th June, 2005 an understanding was arrived in between  

11

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 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.  

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 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 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?  

12

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 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.  Therefore, the question does arise  

as  to  whether  without  taking  a  decision  that  land  is  to  be  settled  by  

negotiation,  the process of auction or calling the tender can be dispensed  

with.

19. In the instant case the appellant had been asking the 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, 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.

20. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should 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  

13

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 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 SC 1427; Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala 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 would only be a case of colourable  

exercise  of  power.  The  Rule  of  Law is  the  foundation  of  a  democratic  

society.  In I.R. Coelho (dead) by LRs Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007  

SC 861, the Apex Court held as under:-

“The  State  is  to  deny  no  one  equality  before  the  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 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.”

14

22. In  a  case  like  this,  when  the  applicant  approaches  the  Court  

complaining 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 followed  

while deciding the application for interim relief.

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 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 Anand Prasad Agarwalla v.  State of Assam vs.  

Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2367; and Barak Upatyaka D.U.  

Karmachari  Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694)

24. 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  

15

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 granted (vide M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. AIR 2006 SC  

3275;  and  Shridevi & Anr. vs. Muralidhar & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 721.   

25. Grant of temporary injunction, is governed by three basic principles,  

i.e. prima facie case; balance of  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 (Vide  

S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. M/s. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR 2000 SC  2114; and  

Anand Prasad Agarwalla (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 application or  petition for  the grant  of  

injunctions are as below :

(i) Extent of damages being an adequate remedy;

16

(ii) Protect  the  plaintiff’s  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 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 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;

(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;

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

27. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors., AIR 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 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  

17

judicial  discretion to meet  the ends of  justice.  The facts  rest  eloquent and speak for themselves. 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  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  SC 1975, this  

Court considered a case where the courts below 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 is by way  

of just self-imposed restriction.  An irreparable injury which forcibly tilts the  

balance in favour of the applicant, may 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  satisfied that withholding of it  would prick the conscience of  

18

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  vindicate  the  cause  of  justice.”

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. (2009) 5 SCC 452)

31. In  Bombay  Dyeing  &  Manufacturing  Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  Bombay  

Environmental Action Group & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 61, this Court observed  

as under:-

“The  courts,  however,  have  to  strike  a  balance  between two  extreme  positions  viz.  whether  the  writ  petition  would  itself  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  not  be  possible  to  be  redeemed.”  

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 facts  involved therein on the risk and  

19

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  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 belated stage provided the  

court is satisfied that the applicant  has not been  negligent in pursuing the  

case.  

33. Anything done in undue haste  can also be termed as arbitrary and  

cannot  be  condoned  in  law.  (Vide  Madhya  Pradesh  Hasta  Shilpa  Vikas  

Nigam  Ltd.  V.  Devendra  Kumar  Jain  &  Ors.  (1995)  1  SCC  638;  and  

Bahadursinh  Lakhubhai  Gohil  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 appellant is based on  

20

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  

mentioned  hereinabove  clearly  establish  that  the  Corporation  and  the  

Government  proceeded  in  haste  while  considering  the  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 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 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 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.    

21

35. Undoubtedly, there has been a delay on the part of the appellant in  

approaching  the  court  but  we  cannot  be  oblivious  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  

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 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 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 in preposterous.

36. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal  

deserves  to  be  allowed  and  is  hereby  allowed.   In  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case,  the  interim  order  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  

22

either on facts or on law shall not adversely effect the 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.    

…………………………………..J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, September 11,  2009  

23

24