3/4/2015 ZenitMataplastP.Ltd.Vs.StateofMaharashtra&Ors.|Judgments|SupremeCourtJudgments:September,2009|LawLibrary|AdvocateKhoj

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20class%3D%22MsoNormal%22%20style%3D%22margin%3A%205pt%200in%2010pt%3B%20fontsize%3A%2011pt%3B%20fontfamily%3A%20Calibri%2C%20sansserif%3B%20color% 1/3

ZenitMataplastP.Ltd.Vs.StateofMaharashtra&Ors.[2009]INSC1572(11September2009)

Judgment

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18934 of 2008) ZenitMataplastP.Ltd.....AppellantVersusStateofMaharashtraandOrs.....Respondent

Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

1.Leavegranted.2.Thisappealhasbeen filedagainst theorderof theBombayHighCourtdated5.2.2008rejecting theapplication for interimreliefwhile2admitting theWrit

PetitionNo.7245/2006andexpeditingitshearingagainsttheallotmentoflandbytherespondentNo.2infavourofrespondentsnos.4and5.3.Thefactsandcircumstancesgivingrisetothiscasearethatappellant,aPrivateLtd.Company,incorporatedundertheprovisionsofCompanies'Act1956,is

indulgedinmanufacturingofpresscomponents,mouldedcomponents,softluggage,mouldedluggageandothertravelgoods,tools,mouldsjigs,diesfixturesand other engineering goods and carrying its business on a landmeasuring 4050 sq.meters on plot no.F18 in the Satpur industrial Estate, Nasik. Theappellantsubmittedanapplicationdated30.11.2005(AnnexureP3)forallotmentof8000sq.yardslandfromtheadjacentvacantlandonaprescribedformcomplying with other requirements. The said application was rejected by the respondent no.2, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation(hereinafterreferredtoas`Corporation'),aMaharashtraGovernmentUndertakingconstitutedundertheprovisionsofMaharashtraIndustrialDevelopmentAct,1961(forshort1961Act). Infact, theCorporationhaspowersanddutiestomakeallotmentof landfor industrialpurposes.Itappearsthatvide letterdated14.3.2005 to theHon'bleChiefMinisterofMaharashtra, the respondent3no.4,M/s.Mahendra&MahendraLtd., a leading industrialCompany,asked forprovidingpendingduesofincentiveswhichwereextendedtoitearlier.

In thesaid letter itwasalsopointedout that the respondentno.4hasentered intoacollaborationwithautomobilecompanyRenaultand intended tosetupa jointventureformanufacturingofcar,"TheLogan"intoIndiaandthesaidrespondentwaslocatingtheprojectatNasik(Maharashtra)orZahirabad(AndhraPradesh)oratanyothernewplaceinUttranchal.Inthesaidletter,ademandforlandmeasuring5to8acresforparkingfacilitiesatSatpurIndustrialEstate,Nasikand3to4acresparkingplotoutsidetheexistingfactorygateatNasikwasalsoincluded.TheGovernmentofMaharashtravideletterdated10.6.2005promisedthattherespondentno.2CorporationwouldprovidemaximumpossiblevacantlandintheexistingareaattheapplicableratesandtheCorporationwouldfurtherfacilitateacquisitionofadditional land identifiedbytheCorporationfor itsprojectaswellasfor locatingtheclusterof industrialunits(AnnexureR.4/R.5).TheGovernmentofMaharashtraaccordedthestatusof"MegaProject"totheforthcomingprojectofrespondentno.4knownas`LoganCarProject'atNasikvideletterdated11.11.2005(AnnexureR.4/R.6).Respondentno.4submittedaninformalapplicationdated23.11.2005totheRespondentNo.2tomaketheallotmentofdesignatedOpenSpace,PlotNos.8and9,inits4favour.TheuseroflandwaschangedfromopenspacetoIndustrialAreavideresolutiondated10.2.2006andplotwasrenumberedas126,insteadofOpenSpaceNo.9,bytherespondentcorporation.Theformalapplicationwassubmittedforthatpurposebytherespondentno.4on1.3.2006totherespondentno.2(AnnexureR.4/R.9).RespondentNo.2,videletterdated27.3.2006(AnnexureR.4/R.10),allottedthelandmeasuring17acresinfavouroftherespondentno.4foratotalpremiumof7,51,14,600/afterchangingtheuserofthelandfromvacantspacetoindustrial.Onthesamedate,namely,27.3.2006,therespondentno.4wasputinpossessionofthesaidlandandanagreementforlicence/leasewasexecutedbetweenrespondentno.2andrespondentno.4on3.7.2006.Apartofopenspacewasalsoconvertedasa"parkingspace"anditwasallottedinfavourofrespondentno.5forparkingofvehicles.

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 and10.10.2006, pointing out that rejection of its application and allotment of huge area of land in favour of respondentNos .4 and 5was discriminatory andviolativeoflawsandparticularlythestatutoryrequirementwhichprovidedforallotmentoflandtotheneighbouringunitholders.The5appellantaskedthatitmaybeallottedsomepartoftheremaininglandfromthedesignatedvacantlandwhoselanduserhasbeenconvertedfromopenspacetoindustrialArea.Asnoorderwaspassedonitsrepresentations,theappellantfiledthewritpetitioninOctober2006beforetheHighCourt.

However,theCourtadmittedthewritpetition,expeditedthehearingofthewritpetitionbutrejectedtheapplicationforinterimrelief.Hence,thisappeal.

5.ShriDushyantDave,learnedseniorcounselappearingfortheappellanthassubmittedthattheapplicationoftheappellanthasbeenrejectedwithoutassigninganyreasonwhatsoeverandprobablythereasonmaybethatonthedateofpassingtheorderthelandwasmerelyadesignatedvacantlandandnotmeantforindustrialpurpose.

However,inordertofavourtherespondentNo.4,abigindustrialhouse,theStateauthoritiespassedthedirectionstotherespondentCorporationtoallotopenspaceafterchangeofuser.Applicationofrespondentno.4wasprocessedinhasteandallconsequentialordershavebeenpassedwithinaveryshortspanof time.LandhasbeenallottedtoRespondentNo.4onthedirectionofthehigherauthorities,whichisnotpermissibleinlaw.Thus,suchacourseisviolativeof6Article14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Thewritpetitionfiledbytheappellantwouldbecomeinfructuous,iftherespondentno.4ispermittedtodeveloptheallottedland.TheHighCourtoughttohavegrantedtheinterimrelief.Therefore,theappealdeservestobeallowed.

6.Onthecontrary,ShriBhaskarP.Gupta, learnedseniorcounselappearingforrespondentNo.4hassubmittedthattherehadbeenlargenumberofoffersbyvariousStatestoRespondentNo.4tosetuptheindustryforthepurposeofproductionofcars/jeepsandvariousincentiveswereoffered,particularly,bytheStatesofMadhyaPradeshandAndhraPradesh.However,asithasseveralunitsinMaharashtra,therespondentNo.4madeapplicationtotheHon'bletheChiefMinister forallotmentof landandafterconsidering the facts, itwasdecided tomake theallotmentof landatSatpur IndustrialEstateNasik,as theappellantwas having about four other units in close vicinity thereof. It is also submitted byShriGupta that no lawhas been violated and the authoritiesproceeded strictly in conformity with the statutory requirements. Respondent no.4 has already invested a huge amount in the project. Appellant did notapproachtheHigh7Courtpromptly.Thus,theHighCourthasrightlyrefusedtogranttheinterimrelief.Impugnedorderdoesnotrequireanyinterference.

7.ShriShyamDivan,learnedseniorcounselappearingfortherespondentCorporationhassubmittedthatwhentheapplicationoftheappellantwasrejected,thelandindisputewasadesignatedvacant landandtherefore, itcouldnotbeallottedforanyindustrialpurpose.Thelandwasallottedtotherespondentno.4afterchangeofuser,consideringtherequirementofrespondentNo.4andtakingintoconsiderationvariousotherfactors,particularly,thedevelopmentofthecitykeepinginmindthattheindustryofrespondentNo.4wouldprovidejobtolargenumberofpersonsandthepeopleofthelocalareawouldbebenefittedotherwisealso.

Appellantcannotbeheardcomplainingagainsttheallotmentindispute,asitisinconsonancewithallthestatutoryrequirements.InterimreliefcouldnotbegrantedatabelatedstageastheappellanthadnotfiledthepetitionbeforetheHighCourtimmediatelyafterallotmentoftheland.Thus,theinterimapplicationhasrightlybeenrejectedbytheHighCourt..Theappealhasnomerit,thusliabletobedismissed.

8.Wehaveconsideredtherivalsubmissionsmadebythelearnedcounselforthepartiesandperusedtherecord.9.Itisevidentfromthesiteplanthatalargenumberofplotshadbeencarvedoutfromthehugeareaoflandandinbetween,anopenvacantspacebeingNo.9

was left. It isalsoevident fromthesaidsiteplan thatafterplotNos.F13,F14andF15, therewasavacantspaceand then,plotNos.F18,F19etc.Thus,theremusthavebeenplotNos.F16andF17betweenplotnos.F15andF18,atonestage.Thelandindisputewasadjacenttosaidtwoplotsalso.TheappellanthaddemandedthelandfromPlotNos.F16andF17.However,thereisnothingonrecordtoshowastohowthesetwoplotsbearingNos.F16andF17coulddisappearfromthesiteplanandbecomepartofOpenSpaceNo.9.

10.Applicationoftheappellanthasbeenrejectedvideorderdated19.12.2005withoutassigninganyreasonanditcannotbesaidastowhethertheapplicationwas rejectedmerelyon theground that the land indispute, at that timewasadesignated vacant landandnotmeant for the industrial purpose, thus, itsapplicationcouldnotbeentertained.Onthecontrary,admittedlyintheyear2004,apartPlotNo.F17(vacantspace)measuring9about500Sq.Mtrs.hadbeen allotted to BSNL without the change of the user. No explanation could be furnished by the respondents as to under what circumstances such anallotmentwaspermissible.

11.So faras theallotment to respondentNo.4 isconcerned, thishadbeenunder thedirectionsof theStateGovernment to theCorporation.TheCorporationchangedthelanduserandmadetheallotmentoflandtotheextentof17acresandthepossessionhadbeenhandedoverimmediately.

The licensedeedhadbeenexecutedandall theproceedingshadbeentaken incloseproximityof time.LetterwrittenbyrespondentNo.4dated14thMarch,2005(AnnexureR4/4)totheHon'bleChiefMinistersuggeststhatsomeotherStateshadofferedtherespondentNo.4variousincentivesforestablishinganindustrialunit.Itisevidentfromtheletterdated10thJune,2005(AnnexureR4/5)writtenbytheSecretarytotheMinistryofIndustries,EnergyandLabourDepartment,Maharashtrato theRespondentNo.4 that theStateGovernmentwaswilling tomake various concessions and provide incentives including the allotment of land atNasik forestablishmentofLOGANcarsproject.

3/4/2015 ZenitMataplastP.Ltd.Vs.StateofMaharashtra&Ors.|Judgments|SupremeCourtJudgments:September,2009|LawLibrary|AdvocateKhoj

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20class%3D%22MsoNormal%22%20style%3D%22margin%3A%205pt%200in%2010pt%3B%20fontsize%3A%2011pt%3B%20fontfamily%3A%20Calibri%2C%20sansserif%3B%20color% 2/3

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 theCorporation has, in general power to promote and assist in the rapid and orderly establishment growth and development of industries in the State ofMaharashtra.Section15thereofprovidesforgeneralpowerof theCorporationwhich includesthepower toacquireandhold the landandtodisposeof thesamebyexecutingthelease,saledeeds,exchangeorotherwisetransferanyproperty.Section31ofthe1961Act,providesforacquisitionanddisposaloftheland.

13.TheMaharashtra IndustrialDevelopmentCorporation (DisposalofLand)Regulations,1975havebeen framed togiveeffect to theprovisionsof1961Act.Regulation4providesfordisposalofthelandcoveredbythelayoutpreparedbytheCorporationbypublicauctionorbyentertainingindividualapplications.Regulation6provides foraparticular form tobe filledupwhere theallotment is tobemadebyapplicationsanddepositofprocess feeetc.Regulation10providesthattheLandCommitteeshallconsidertheapplicationandpassappropriateordersforallotmentofland.

14.GovernmentofMaharashtrahad issuedaCirculardated25thJanuary,1994regardingfixationof rateof industrialarea inwhichallotmentofplothas tobemadeby inviting tenders.Clause4 thereof provided for "preferential right" of theunit holder for havingallotment of "neighbouring land" for thepurposeoffactoryexpansion.Italsoprovidesthatwheretherearemorethanoneapplicationforallotment,theplotmaybedisposedofbyadoptingthetenderprocess.

15.Therehadbeenclaimsandcounterclaimsby theparties.Theappellantclaimedthat ithadpreferential right forallotmentof thepartof thevacant landforexpansionof its factory.However, itsapplicationhasbeen rejectedwithoutgivingany reasonwhatsoever, though the law requiresgiving the reasons forpassinganyorderand theallotment in favourof respondentNo.4waspassed inunduehasteshowing favouritismbeingabig industrial unit.The rightofequality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution stood violated. The application of the appellant had beenmade prior to the applicationmade byrespondentNo.4.TherespondentNo.4insteadofmakingapplicationtotheCorporationstartednegotiationswiththeGovernmentdirectlyforallotmentoflandmerelybywritingaletterinJune,2005andon10thJune,2005anunderstandingwasarrivedinbetween12theGovernmentofMaharashtraandrespondentNo.4ofcommissioningoftheProjectatNasik.TheinformalapplicationwasfiledbyrespondentNo.4on23.11.2005formakingallotmentoflandfromOpenSpaceNo.9.TheapplicationofrespondentNo.4wasprocessedbyLandAllotmentCommitteeon22ndDecember,2005,whereintheobservationwasmadethatitwasanimportantindustryforthecitylandanditsexpansionwouldgreatlybenefittheindustrialgrowthinNasik.

16.The user of land inOpenSpaceNo.9was converted fromOpenSpace to Industrial Area vide order/resolution dated 10th February, 2006 and itwas renumberedasPlotNo.126.Thefirstformalapplicationwassubmittedbytherespondentno.4totherespondentcorporationonlyon1.3.2006andtheallotmentwasmadeinfavouroftherespondentNo.4on27.3.2006.Respondentno.4wasputinpossessionon27.3.2006itself.Thelicenseagreementwasexecutedbytherespondentcorporation in favourofrespondentno.4onJuly3,2006.ThedemandofrespondentNo.4hadnotbeento theextent theareahadbeenallotted.

Inviewoftheabovefactsandcircumstances,thesolequestionhasarisenastowhethertheHighCourtwasjustifiedinnotgrantingtheinterimreliefinfavouroftheappellant?13

17.RecordsrevealthattheappellanthadbeenbargainingwiththerespondentCorporationmakingapplicationafterapplicationforallotmentoflandfromremainingvacantareaandapproachedtheCourtatsomebelatedstage.EvenbeforetheHighCourtthematterremainedpendingfor longbeforeitwasadmittedandtheapplicationforinterimreliefwasrejected.

18.TheRegulation1975providesforallotmentoflandbypublicauctionorbyentertainingindividualapplications.Therefore,thequestiondoesariseastowhetherwithouttakingadecisionthatlandistobesettledbynegotiation,theprocessofauctionorcallingthetendercanbedispensedwith.

19.Intheinstantcasetheappellanthadbeenaskingtherespondentno.2togranttheleaseofplotnos.F16andF17,whichhadearliernotbeenthepartoftheOpenSpaceNo.9,onthebasisofbeingcontiguousandadjacenttotheappellant'sexistingfactoryatplotno.F18.Ithasbeencanvassedonbehalfoftheappellantthattheactionoftherespondentno.2isarbitraryandunreasonableandnotinconformitywiththestatutoryprovisions.

20.EveryactionoftheStateoritsinstrumentalitiesshouldnotonlybefair,legitimateandaboveboardbutshouldbewithoutanyaffectionoraversion.Itshouldneitherbesuggestiveofdiscriminationnoreven14apparentlygivean impressionofbias, favouritismandnepotism.Thedecisionshouldbemadeby theapplicationofknownprincipleandrulesandingeneralsuchdecisionshouldbepredictableandthecitizenshouldknowwhereheis,butifadecisionistakenwithoutanyprincipleorwithoutanyrule,itisunpredictableandsuchadecisionisantithesistothedecisiontakenCorporation,AIR1988SC157).

21.Inessence,theaction/orderoftheStateorStateinstrumentalitywouldstandvitiatedifitlacksbonafideasitwouldonlybeacaseofcolourableexerciseofpower. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic SC 861, the Apex Court held as under: "The State is to deny no one equality before thelaw........Economicgrowthandsocialequityare the twopillarsofourConstitutionwhichare linked to the rightofan individual (right toequalopportunity),ratherthanintheabstract.......Equality,ruleoflaw,judicialreviewandseparationofpowersformpartsofthebasicstructureoftheConstitution.

Eachoftheseconceptsareintimatelyconnected.Therecanbenoruleoflaw,ifthereisnoequalitybeforethelaw.Thesewouldbemeaninglessiftheviolationwasnotsubjecttothejudicialreview."

22.Inacaselikethis,whentheapplicantapproachestheCourtcomplainingagainsttheStatutoryAuthorityallegingarbitrariness,biasorfavouritism,thecourt,being custodian of law,must examine the avermentsmade in the application to form a tentative opinion as to whether there is any substance in thoseallegations.Suchacourseisalsorequiredtobefollowedwhiledecidingtheapplicationforinterimrelief.

23.Interimorderispassedonthebasisofprimafaciefindings,whicharetentative.Suchorderispassedasatemporaryarrangementtopreservethestatusquotill thematter isdecided finally, toensure that thematterdoesnotbecomeeither infructuousora faitaccomplibefore the finalhearing.Theobjectof theinterlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damagesrecoverableintheactioniftheuncertaintywereresolvedinhisfavouratthetrial.(videAnandPrasadAgarwallav.StateofAssamvs.TarkeshwarPrasad&Ors.AIR2001SC2367andBarakUpatyakaD.U.KarmachariSanstha(2009)5SCC694)

24.Grantofaninterimreliefinregardtothenatureandextentthereofdependsuponthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcaseasnostraitjacket16formulacanbelaiddown.Theremaybeasituationwhereinthedefendant/respondentmayusethesuitpropertyinsuchamannerthatthesituationbecomesirretrievable.Insuchafactsituation,interimreliefshould3275andShridevi&Anr.vs.Muralidhar&Anr.(2007)14SCC721.

25.Grantoftemporaryinjunction,isgovernedbythreebasicprinciples,i.e.primafaciecasebalanceofconvenienceandirreparableinjury,whicharerequiredtobeconsideredinaproperperspectiveinthefactsandcircumstancesofaparticularcase.Butitmaynotbeappropriateforanycourttoholdaminitrialatthestageofgrantoftemporaryinjunction(VideAnandPrasadAgarwalla(supra).

SC3105,thiscourtobservedthattheotherconsiderationswhichoughttoweighwiththeCourthearingtheapplicationorpetitionforthegrantof injunctionsareasbelow:

(i)Extentofdamagesbeinganadequateremedy

(ii)Protecttheplaintiff'sinterestforviolationofhisrightsthoughhoweverhavingregardtotheinjurythatmaybesufferedbythedefendantsbyreasontherefor

(iii)Thecourtwhiledealingwiththematteroughtnottoignorethefactumofstrengthofoneparty'scasebeingstrongerthantheothers

(iv)Nofixedrulesornotionsoughttobehadinthematterofgrantofinjunctionbutonthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcasethereliefbeingkeptflexible

26.Theissueistobelookedfromthepointofviewastowhetheronrefusaloftheinjunctiontheplaintiffwouldsufferirreparablelossandinjurykeepinginviewthestrengthoftheparties'case

27.Balanceofconvenienceorinconvenienceoughttobeconsideredasanimportantrequirementevenifthereisaseriousquestionorprimafaciecaseinsupportofthegrant

28.Whether thegrantor refusalof injunctionwilladverselyaffect the interestofgeneralpublicwhichcanorcannotbecompensatedotherwise." theSupremeCourt explained the scope of aforesaidmaterial circumstances, but observed as under: "The phrases `prima facie case', `balance of convenience' and `irreparable loss'arenot rhetoricphrases for incantation,butwordsofwidthandelasticity, tomeetmyriadsituationspresentedbyman's ingenuity ingivenfactsandcircumstances,butalwaysishedgedwithsoundexerciseof18judicialdiscretiontomeettheendsofjustice.Thefactsresteloquentandspeakforthemselves.Itiswellnighimpossibletofindfromfactsprimafaciecaseandbalanceofconvenience."

HiraLal,AIR1962SC527heldthatthecivilcourthasapowertograntinteriminjunctioninexerciseofitsinherentjurisdictionevenifthecasedoesnotfallwithintheambitofprovisionsofOrder39CodeofCivilProcedure.

3/4/2015 ZenitMataplastP.Ltd.Vs.StateofMaharashtra&Ors.|Judgments|SupremeCourtJudgments:September,2009|LawLibrary|AdvocateKhoj

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20class%3D%22MsoNormal%22%20style%3D%22margin%3A%205pt%200in%2010pt%3B%20fontsize%3A%2011pt%3B%20fontfamily%3A%20Calibri%2C%20sansserif%3B%20color% 3/3

29.InDeorajvs.StateofMaharashtra&Ors.AIR2004SC1975, thisCourtconsideredacasewherethecourtsbelowhadrefusedthegrantof interimrelief.Whiledealingwiththeappeal,theCourtobservedthatordinarilyinexerciseofitsjurisdictionunderArt.136oftheConstitution,thisCourtdoesnotinterferewiththeordersofinterimnaturepassedbytheHighCourt.However,thisruleofdiscretionfollowedinpracticeisbywayofjustselfimposedrestriction.Anirreparable injurywhich forcibly tilts thebalance in favourof theapplicant,maypersuade theCourteven tograntan interimrelief though itmayamount togranting the final relief itself.TheCourtheldasunder: "TheCourtwouldgrantsuchan interim reliefonly ifsatisfied thatwithholdingof itwouldprick theconscienceof19thecourtanddoviolenceto thesenseof justice,resulting in injusticebeingperpetuatedthroughout thehearing,andat theendthecourtwouldnotbeabletovindicatethecauseofjustice."

30.SuchacourseispermissiblewhenthecaseoftheapplicantisbasedonhisfundamentalrightsguaranteedbytheConstitutionofIndia.(videAllIndiaAnnaDravidaMunnetraKazhagamvs.ChiefSecretary,Govt.ofTamilNadu&Ors.(2009)5SCC452)EnvironmentalActionGroup&Ors.(2005)5SCC61,thisCourtobservedasunder:"Thecourts,however,havetostrikeabalancebetweentwoextremepositionsviz.whetherthewritpetitionwoulditselfbecomeinfructuous if interimorder is refused, on the one hand, and the enormity of losses and hardshipswhichmaybe suffered by others if an interimorder isgranted, particularly having regard to the fact that in such an event, the losses sustained by the affected parties thereby may not be possible to beredeemed."

31.Thus,thelawontheissueemergestotheeffectthatinteriminjunctionshouldbegrantedbytheCourtafterconsideringalltheprosandconsofthecaseinagivensetoffactsinvolvedthereinontheriskand20responsibilityofthepartyor, incaseheloosesthecase,hecannottakeanyadvantageofthesame.Theordercanbepassedonsettledprinciplestakingintoaccountthethreebasicgroundsi.e.primafaciecase,balanceofconvenienceandirreparableloss.Thedelay inapproaching theCourt isofcourseagoodground for refusalof interim relief,but inexceptionalcircumstances,where thecaseofaparty isbasedonfundamentalrightsguaranteedundertheConstitutionandthereisanapprehensionthatsuitpropertymaybedevelopedinamannerthatitacquiresirretrievablesituation,theCourtmaygrantreliefevenatabelatedstageprovidedthecourt issatisfiedthattheapplicanthasnotbeennegligentinpursuingthecase.

32.Anythingdone inunduehastecanalsobe termedasarbitraryandcannotbecondoned in law. (VideMadhyaPradeshHastaShilpaVikasNigamLtd.V.DevendraKumarJain&Ors.(1995)1SCC638and2004SC1159).

33.Iftheinstantcaseisconsidered,inthelightoftheabovesettledlegalpropositionsandadmittedlythewholecaseoftheappellantisbasedon21violationofArticle 14of theConstitutionasaccording to theappellant it hasbeena caseof violationof equality clauseenshrined inArticle 14, the factsmentionedhereinabove clearly establish that the Corporation and the Government proceeded in haste while considering the application of respondent No.4 whichtantamount toarbitrariness, thusviolativeof themandateofArticle14of theConstitution.Applicationof theappellantwasrequiredtobedisposedofbyaspeakingandreasonedorder.Admittedly,noreasonwasassignedforrejectingthesame.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowasonwhatdateandunderwhatcircumstances,Plotnos.F16andF17stooddecarvedandbecamepartoftheOpenSpaceNo.9.Therespondentscouldnotfurnishanyexplanationasinwhatmannerandunderwhatcircumstances,theBharatSancharNigamLtd.hasbeenmadeallotmentoflandfromplotno.F16,(apartofOpenSpaceNo.9),withoutchangeofuseroftheland.Therespondentno.4hadnotinitiallyaskedfor17acresoflandwhichhasbeenallottedtoit.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshow 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 itsinstrumentalitieshaveactedaffectionatelyinthecaseofrespondentno.4.

34.Undoubtedly,therehasbeenadelayonthepartoftheappellantinapproachingthecourtbutwecannotbeobliviousofthefactthattheappellanthadbeenapproachingtheauthoritiestimeandagainforallotmentoftheland.Admittedly,theentirelandhadnotbeendevelopedbytherespondentno.4tillthisCourtentertainedtheSpecialLeavePetitionanddirectedtheparties tomaintainstatusquowithregardto the landmeasuring2acresadjacent to theappellant'splotno.F15videorderdated21.7.2008.

Therefore,itisnotonlytheappellantwhoistobeblamedforthedelay.Thelandhadbeenallottedtotherespondentno.4inunduehasteandnodevelopmentcouldtakeplacethereinformorethantwoyearsoftakingthepossessionoftheland.Insuchafactsituationthesubmissionmadeonbehalfoftherespondentsthatinterimstaycannotbegrantedatabelatedstageinpreposterous.

35.Inviewofabove,weareoftheconsideredopinionthattheappealdeservestobeallowedandisherebyallowed.Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,theinterimorderpassedbythisCourton21.7.2008shallcontinueinoperationtill thewritpetition isdecidedbytheHighCourt.TheHon'bleHighCourt isrequested todisposeof thewritpetitionexpeditiously.Needless tosay thatanyobservationmadeherein23eitheron factsoron lawshallnotadverselyeffect thecaseofeitherof theparties, for thereasonthat theonlyquestionbeforethisCourthasbeenastowhethertheappellantdeservestobegrantedinterimprotectiontillhiswritpetitionisdecidedbytheHighCourt.

Theappealstandsdisposedofaccordingly.Nocosts.

.........................................J.(ALTAMASKABIR)

.......................................J.