Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukhtar Ali Bhutto & Anr. vs . Rajasthan State Roadways on 15 September, 2014
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6686/2014 Mukhtar Ali Bhutto & Anr. vs. Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation & Ors. UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.4.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE NO.2, BUNDI IN MISC. APPEAL NO. 07/2014. Date of Judgment : 15th September, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Deepak Pareek, for the petitioners.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.4.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge, No.2, Bundi, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and quashed and set aside the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Talera, wherein the learned Judge had granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction against Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation inter alia on the ground that the petitioners are residents of Talera. According to them, the buses of RSRTC used to ply on the main road of Talera, which passed by the main bazar, the courts and before important institutions. However, suddenly, RSRTC has not only closed his ticket window established on main road, but has also shifted the plying of the buses to the new Ring Road. Since the buses have stopped plying on the main road, it has caused inconvenience to the old, the students and the women. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was filed. By order dated 19.3.2013, the learned trial court allowed the application of temporary injunction. However, as the respondent No.1, RSRTC was aggrieved by the said order, it filed an appeal before the learned Judge. By order dated 4.4.2014, the learned Judge set aside the order dated 19.3.2013 and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Deepak Pareek, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that if the buses would ply through the main road, through a heavily populated area, it would be convenient for the old, the students and the women. According to the learned counsel, many students travel between two major towns of Kota and Bundi. Thus, by shifting the buses away from the main town and taking the buses to the outer part of the city, much inconvenience is being caused to a large section of population. Secondly, if the RSRTC would continue to ply its buses on its old route, it would earn a larger revenue. Thus, the plying of buses on the main road is win-win situation both for the commuters as well as for the Corporation. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in setting aside the order dated 19.3.2013.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
5. Attractive as the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are, they are untenable. For, while granting temporary injunction, the learned trial court should have remembered that temporary injunction is part of an equitable relief to be given in such a manner as to adjust justice and equity. Secondly, while granting this relief, three major factors have to be kept in mind, namely existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and an irreparable loss which would be caused to the plaintiff, in case temporary injunction were not granted. However, merely because a prima facie case may be made out, it would not necessarily entail the grant of temporary injunction. Moreover, while granting temporary injunction, the main relief of the suit should not be granted, until and unless grave hardship is being caused to the plaintiff. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge is of the opinion that these principles, governing the grant of temporary injunction, have been overlooked by the learned trial court.
6. The learned Jude is of the opinion that the question as to whether the buses should be permitted to ply, the question whether buses should be permitted to ply in heavily populated area, thereby endangering the lives of the people, the question as to whether Corporation is likely to earn more revenue, these questions are issues of policies to be decided by the Corporation itself. Since the petitioners seem to have filed the suit in their personal capacity and do not claim it to have filed in representative capacity, the question would arise whether for the benefit of few individual, the policy decision of the Corporation should be disturbed while granting the temporary injunction or not? Since the policy decision affects the interest of the large majority of the people, obviously, the interest of individual has to give way to the interest of major or of the community. Thus, the learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that the petitioners have not been able to make out even a prima facie case in their favour.
7. Even on the point of balance of convenience, where the balance of interest is between individual and community, former would have to give way to the latter.
8. Moreover, no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners in case the temporary injunction were not granted in their favour.
9. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate has granted a temporary injunction in such a manner as to grant the main relief of the suit. As mentioned earlier, the main relief cannot be granted unless the petitioners has made out a case of grave hardship. Thus, the learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that the learned Magistrate has overstepped his jurisdiction and has wrongly granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.
10. Generally, it is not for the court to decide on behalf of the Corporation as to how it can increase its revenue. Similarly, it is not for the court to decide as to the roads and paths-ways that are to be taken by the buses of Corporation while transporting the people. These are areas left to policy makers. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.3.2013. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order.
11. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN),J.
Mak/-
26All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Anil Makawana P.A