Delhi District Court
M/S Jsn Infratech Llp vs Ramgarh Colony Residents Welfare on 2 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
RCA No. 13/2022
CNR No. DLWT01-001034-2022
In re:
1. M/s JSN Infratech LLP
Partner
Mr. Puneet Ahuja
First Floor B Community Centre
New Friends Colony Appellant No.1
New Delhi (Original def. No. 3)
2. Mr. Rajan Paul
B-1, Kirti Nagar, Appellant No.2
New Delhi -110015 (Original def. No. 1)
3. Smt. Poonam Paul
B-1, Kirti Nagar, Appellant No.3
New Delhi -110015 (Original def. No. 2)
Versus
1. Ramgarh Colony Residents Welfare
Association (Regd.)
WZ-51, Ramgarh Colony, Gali No. 7, Respondent no. 1
New Delhi -110015 (Original plaintiff no. 1)
2. Muntazima Committee Pargah Wali
(Regd.) Masjid Dargh Wali, Respondent no. 2
Basai Darapur, New Delhi (Original plaintiff no. 2)
3. Rattan Park Sudhar Sabha Residents Respondent no. 3
Welfare Association (Original plaintiff no. 3)
RCA-13/2022 Page 1 of 18
4. Gurudwara Shri Singh Sabha (Regd.) Respondent no. 4
Ramgarh Colony (Original plaintiff no. 4)
5. Sh. Updesh Singh S/o Late Respondent no. 5
Sh. S. Shankar R/o WZ-15, Ram Garh (Original plaintiff no. 5)
Colony, New Delhi
6. Mohd. Irfan S/o Mohd Ali Respondent no. 6
R/o WZ-934, Basai Darapur, (Original plaintiff no. 6)
New Delhi
7. Sh. Harjeet Singh Respondent no. 7
S/o Sh. Fauja Singh (Original plaintiff no. 7)
R/o WZ-52, Ramgarh Colony,
New Delhi
8. Sh. Deepak Verma Respondent no. 8
S/o Sh. Gulshan Verma (Original plaintiff no. 8)
R/o 92-A, Ramgarh Colony,
New Delhi.
9. Sh. Naveen Malhotra Respondent no. 9
S/o Sh. B. C. Malhotra (Original plaintiff no. 9)
R/o G-2, Rattan Park,
New Delhi -110015.
10. Sh. Rajesh Malhotra Respondent no. 10
S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram Malhotra (Original plaintiff no. 10)
R/o WZ-1, Gali No.13,
Rattan Park Basai, Darapur, New Delhi.
11. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Respondent no. 11
Through its Chief Secretary, Delhi (Original def no.04)
Secretariat, I. P. Estate, N. Delhi.
12. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
of Delhi Respondent no. 12
West Zone, Rajouri Garden Vishal (Original def. no. 5)
Enclave New Delhi through Commissioner
RCA-13/2022 Page 2 of 18
13. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman/Vice Respondent no. 13
Chairman, Vikas Sadan, INA, (Original def. no. 6)
New Delhi.
Date of filing of Appeal : 03.02.2022
Date of arguments : 24.02.2022
Date of Order : 02.03.2022
Appearances:
Mr. Shubhakar Jha along with Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocates for the
appellants.
Mr. Varun Tyagi, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 through VC.
Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 & 6.
Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents no. 5 & 7.
Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent no. 8.
Respondent no. 9 in person.
Mr. Sanjay Jha, Advocate for the respondent no. 10.
Mr. Umesh Burnwal, Advocate for the respondent no.12/SDMC through VC.
Mr. Saurav Bhasin, Advocate for the respondent no. 13/ DDA through VC.
ORDER
1. This Order shall decide an appeal preferred by the appellants under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC assailing the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge, West District, THC, Delhi in CS SCJ No. 1425/2021 in case titled as Ramgarh Colony Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) New Delhi and Ors v. Sh. Rajan Paul & Ors., allowing the application of the plaintiffs under order XXXIX Rule 1& 2 of the CPC BRIEF BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs viz. Ramgarh Colony Residents Welfare Association (regd.), Muntazima Committee Dargah Wali (Regd.), RCA-13/2022 Page 3 of 18 Rattan Park Sudhar Sabha Residents Welfare Association and 07 other persons filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, who are arrayed as respondents no. 1 to 10 in the present appeal. The case of the plaintiffs was that they are registered Residents Welfare Associations of Ramgarh and Rattan Park Areas concerned with the welfare and interests of the residents of Ramgarh and Rattan Park Area while the plaintiffs no. 4 to 10 are the residents of Ramgarh and Rattan Park Areas.
3. Their grievance was that defendant no. 1 & 2 (appellants no. 2 & 3 in the present appeal) are joint owners of H. No. WZ-70B (G-21, 22 & 24), Rattan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property") comprising of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor and though the said property is residential one, but they are using it for various commercial purposes, and defendant no. 3 (appellant no. 1 in the present appeal) has taken one shop on the ground floor of the suit property on rent for setting up and starting a liquor shop. Defendant no. 4 in the main suit is Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Defendant no. 5 is the South Municipal Corporation of Delhi(for short S-DMC), whereas the defendant no. 6 is the Delhi Development Authority (which parties are respondent no. 11 to 13 in the present appeal) respectively.
4. The grievance of the plaintiffs in a nutshell was that they are aggrieved, disturbed, perturbed and harassed by the unlawful acts of the defendants who are allowing defendant no. 3 to set up, start and run a liquor shop in the suit property, which is unauthorizedly constructed contrary to the building bye-laws; and that the opening of the liquor shop RCA-13/2022 Page 4 of 18 caused an alarm and situation of fear and panic in the minds of the plaintiffs and other residents of Rattan Park, Ramgarh as well as Basai Darapur areas since the suit property is located right at the entry of the said colonies, which would cause hurdles and disturbances in the movement of the residents as well as their vehicles; and that the local residents are worried and concerned about their safety as well as safety and protection of their young children, considering that selling of liquor would result in public hazard in the area. It was claimed that though plaintiffs and other local residents have registered their grievances before different authorities responsible for safety and welfare of the society, however, no action has been taken by any of the departments, which clearly reflects their connivance with defendant no. 1 to 3 (appellant no. 1 to 3 in the present appeal).
INTERIM PROTECTION:
5. The suit was filed on 24.11.2021 on which date the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge considered the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC and prima facie finding that suit property was meant for residential purposes but being used for commercial purposes, and also prima facie finding that vide Clause 4.1.6 (i) Rule 51 (1) (b) of the Delhi Excise Rules 2010, no retail vend of Indian liquor, foreign liquor or Country liquor shall be located within 100 meters from any religious place, major educational institution and hospital; and also believing the case of the plaintiffs that there were two government primary schools as well as couple of private schools in the vicinity and also a mosque, a temple a gurudwara are falling within 100-200 meters from the suit property, Ld.Sr. Civil Judge granted an ex-parte status quo regarding the use of the suit property RCA-13/2022 Page 5 of 18 and directed that the proposed liquor shop shall not be opened in the suit property till the next date of hearing.
6. On serving of summons and impugned ex-parte injunction order, defendant no. 1 & 2 filed a joint written statement while defendant no. 3 filed a separate individual written statement, to contest the case of the plaintiffs. No appearance was put by defendant no. 4 Govt. of NCT of Delhi and no reply was filed by defendant no. 5 & 6 except that defendant no. 5 S-DMC filed a status report in respect of the suit property on 22.12.2021 to the effect that on the complaints received at their end, show cause notice under section 344 (1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1958 (in short DMC Act) has been issued to the owner on 18.11.2021 and a reply has been received from the owner Rajan Paul to the effect that the existing construction in the suit property is prior to the year 2005 and the same is protected from any punitive action as per National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act 2017.
THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS:
7. The sum and substance of the defence by defendant no. 1 to 3 in the written statement is that the defendant no. 3 has been granted Zonal licence no. L7V/2021/06793 for Zone 7 by the Department of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax, Government of National Capitals Territory of Delhi, L & N Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, as the defendant no. 3 has been successful bidder of the tender floated by the Excise Department, Delhi as per the Excise Police (new) 2021-22 of Delhi Government. It is submitted that for the said zonal licence, noticee RCA-13/2022 Page 6 of 18 has invested amount including the EMD of Rs. 60 Crore and further made agreements with the respective owners for opening of liquor vends which as per the policy, in one zone 27 vends are to be opened. It is submitted that for the said property, the defendant no. 3 has got the licence under L7 and L7FG category which was granted by the Excise Department after verifying all norms, particulars and relevant terms and conditions in consonance with the Excise Policy and Delhi Excise Act and Rules there under.
8. It was further submitted that the suit property is a commercial property which is clear from Annexure at page no. 58 filed along-with the suit wherein it has been certified by the MCD that the said property is commercial property on the strength of notification no. F, 13/46/2006- UD/16071 dated 15.09.2006. The defendant has referred to the Master Plan 2021 with the submissions that as per the Master Plan clause 15.12.3 (iv), upon notification of a commercial street such street / area is to be considered as local shopping centre as mentioned. It is submitted that the property of the defendant no. 3 is on a commercial street and as per the Master Plan the same can be treated as local shopping complex. Further vide letter dated 01.07.2010, the DDA has duly communicated to the Delhi Excise regarding permissibility of liquor shop/ vend in local shopping centres & convenient shopping centres.
9. Further, it was submitted that a team of office and inspector has already visited the said premises of the defendant no. 3 and upon satisfaction for grant of L7V licence ARN No. 0000053113 and ARN No. 0000053180 have been provisionally approved vide letter dated RCA-13/2022 Page 7 of 18 14.11.2021 wherein it has been stated that L7V licence will be granted / issued after submission of photograph / video graphic proof of completion of all civil and electrical work etc.; and that defendant no. 3 has duly complied with the same and has submitted relevant documents / video and consequently the licence was granted. It was submitted that submission of plaintiffs that the suit property shall be in use in violation of Rule 51 of Delhi Excise Rules is nothing but a false and fabricated submission and has no basis whatsoever. Once the concerned department has followed all norms and after finding the premises to be in compliance of provisions of Excise Act and Rules issued the licence, then it is completely wrong and unjustified on the part of plaintiff to make false allegations. The apprehension on behalf of the plaintiffs is based on no evidence and result of mere assumption and presumption. An application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC has been moved by defendant no. 3 to set aside / recall order dated 24.11.2021.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the Trial Court Record reflects that on 02.12.2021 the applicants / defendants no. 1 to 3 made a request for appointment of a Local Commissioner so as to verify whether any temple, school, gurudwara, masjid or educational institution was located within a radius of 100 sq. meters of the shop in question as per Rule 51 (1) (a) of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 or not. Ms. Taniya Anand, Advocate bar registration no. D-4931/18 was appointed to visit the site and conduct measurement, which report was submitted on 07.12.2021 by way of original hand written proceedings at the spot in the hand writing of Ld. Local Commissioner and also a typed written copy with photographs.
RCA-13/2022 Page 8 of 18IMPUGNED ORDER:
11. The Ld. Sr. Civil Judge vide impugned order dated 18.01.2022 found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the status report filed by S-DMC clearly brought out that the suit property from which the liquor shop was set up to be made functional had been booked for unauthorized construction and the relevant case of Master Plan Development 2021 No. 15.12.3 Clause (v) (vii) came into play, and thus, the suit property where the liquor shop is proposed to be set up is found not complying with the norms for the commercial usage as per report of the S-DMC. Further, finding that the opening of the liquor shop has caused alarm, situation of fear and panic in the minds of the plaintiffs and other residents of Rattan Park, Ramgarh as well as Basai Darapur area, the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge observed that balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and they would suffer irreparable loss if the liquor shop is allowed to be opened on the site. Lastly, in so far as whether or not the construction at the suit premises was protected from punitive action as per NCT of Delhi (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act 2017. Ld Sr.Civil Judge held that the issue required evidence to be adduced during the Trial. Hence, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC moved by defendant no. 1 to 3 was dismissed.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
12. The appellants viz. defendant no. 2 to 3 have assailed the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. Court failed to appreciate that the interim status quo order dated 24.11.2021 was granted on the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs RCA-13/2022 Page 9 of 18 that the liquor shop was located within 100 meters from some religious place, major educational institution and hospital; and the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge failed to appreciate that the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner dated 07.12.2021 clearly brought out that no religious place and / or educational institutions was existing within 100 meters of the proposed liquor shop, and thus, there was no violation of Rule 51 (1) (b) of the Delhi Excise Rules 2010 ; and that the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge erroneously believed that the property was unauthorizedly constructed based on the status report filed by S-DMC and merely because a show cause notice has been issued would not lead to an assumption that there was existing large scale unauthorised construction in the subject property particularly when the premises is in existence since 1991 and being used for commercial purpose under the "conversion scheme" and the requisite charges are being paid by the appellant / landlord / owner to the MCD as would be clear from the tax receipts; and the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the subject property has been held to be commercial as per communication dated 22.10.2021 by the local body S-DMC on the strength of Notification No. F.13/46/2006-UD/1607 dated 15.09.2006 and the proposed shop is also located in the market area on a commercial street far away from a residential area; and that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the balance of convenience rather lies in favour of the appellants since they are suffering not only huge losses of Rs.2,68,280/-
per day basis ; and that the allegations of the plaintiff that there was any alarming situation and fear in their mind was figment of their imagination.
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar by Ld. Counsel for the parties. I have RCA-13/2022 Page 10 of 18 also perused the Trial Court Record and the record in the present appeal besides written submission filed on behalf of the defendants no. 1 to 10.
14. The proposition of law governing grant of the interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the legal proceedings was enunciated in the case of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545, rightly relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which reads as under:-
43. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests -- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. 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. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience"
lies. [See: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] , (SCC at pp. 731-32.] In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.RCA-13/2022 Page 11 of 18
15. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, in the instant case there could exist prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 10) if they are able to demonstrate that the opening of the proposed liquor shop/vend in the suit property is not in conformity with the relevant law holding the field. First thing first, it is admitted fact that the proposed liquor Vend/shop is falling on a commercial street and is going to be opened in a market area. Learned Counsel for the appellants also canvassed this aspect referring to the file No. D-125/EE(B)-I/WZ/2021/AE(B) dated 22.10.2021 issued by Assistant Engineer (Bldg.) West Zone, S-DMC, whereby it was confirmed that "the suit property falls on mixed used streets, now notified as commercial streets vide notification F.No. 13/46/2006-UD/16071 dated 15.09.2006 listed at Sr. No.3 by the name of road / street as 'Main Nazafgarh Road' and stretch of the road 'Laxman Sylvania, New Moti Nagar Chowk to Outer Ringh Road crossing i.e. Ganesh Nagar and can be used for commercial activities on the above said address as per conditions and requirement of MPD-21 / Provision of DMC Act". In other words, it is admitted fact that the suit property is allowed to be used as commercial purpose and being used a such, for which the appellants have even been paying necessary conversion charges to the S-DMC.
16. The whole issue delicately hinges on in the interpretation and applicability of Section 51(1) & (9) of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010, which provides for the conditions dealing with licensed premises. The same reads as under:-
"51. Conditions dealing with licensed premises.- (1) No retail vend of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor or Country Liquor shall be located within one hundred meters from the following, namely.-RCA-13/2022 Page 12 of 18
(a) major educational institutions;
(b) religious places.;
(c) hospitals with fifty beds and above:
Provided that the condition mentioned in clause (c) above shall not apply for retail vend of liquor for consumption "on" the premises:
Provided further that the condition of hundred meters shall apply for the licences granted after the commencement of these rules.
Provided also that if any major educational institution, religious place or hospital with fifty beds or above comes in to existence subsequent to the establishment of the retail vend of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor or Country Liquor, the aforesaid distance restrictions shall not apply. Explanation I- For the purpose of clause (a) above major educational institutions would mean middle and higher secondary schools, colleges and other institutions of higher learning recognized by the Government. Explanation II- For the purpose of clause (b) above, a religious place would imply a religious place having a pucca structure with a covered area of more than 400 square feet. Explanation III- The measurement of distance shall be the shortest traversable distance, from the mid point of the actual main entrance/door of the premises proposed for licence to mid point of the actual main door/entrance of the building of the places mentioned in clauses (a)(b) and (c) above.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (9) Retail licences for consumption "off" the premises shall be permitted at sites or premises, located in a pucca building, the land use of which is commercial approved and shall conform to the orders and instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner from time to time."
17. During the course of arguments, Shri Anuj Kumar Garg, learned Counsel for the respondents no. 2 &6 vociferously urged that the Ld. Local Commissioner in her report dated 07.12.2021 did not correctly measure the distance since such "traversable distance" should RCA-13/2022 Page 13 of 18 have been measured in straight line on horizontal plain basis in terms of Section 11 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. I am afraid the said plea cannot be legally sustained. Section 11 of the General Clauses Act stipulates that "the distance should be measured in straight line on horizontal plain unless different intention appears". The different intention is clearly expressed in Rule 51 of the Excise Rules that provides for measuring of the 'traversable distance', which is derived from the word 'traverse' and used as an adjective, meaning thereby " to travel across or through: extend across or through; move back or forth or sideways to and fro". As per www.oxfordadvancedlearner'sdictonary, the word 'traverse' means to cross and area of land or water. Simply stated, in grammatical meaning it means the distance which would be covered to and fro from the midpoint of the disputed shop to the midpoint on main door/entrance of the building or places vide clauses (a) (b) (c) in Rules 51 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010.
18. In view of the aforesaid understanding, it is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. Local Commissioner in her report dated 07.12.2021 brought out that she inspected the site in the presence of the Ld. Counsel for the parties including the defendants, and measured the distance using Rodometer and the distance from the midpoint of the proposed shop to the midpoint of the gate of the Masjid was measured and found to be 113.4 meters. Infact, there were two more gates/entrances of the Masjid and the distance between other gate of the Masjid from midpoint to the midpoint of the subject property was measured to be 162.1 meters. Likewise, the distance from the third gate/entrance of the Masjid, namely Dargah Wali Masjid and the shop in such a manner was found to be 186.1 meters. Ld. Local Commissioner RCA-13/2022 Page 14 of 18 then measured the distance from the midpoint of the main entrance/gate of Government Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya School to the midpoint of the shop, which came to 193.2 meters. Then Ld. Local Commissioner moved to measure the distance of Sanatan Dharm Mandir, Rattan Park from the subject property and it was found to be 173.7 M. It was then recorded by the ld Local Commissioner that enquiries were made from the neighbours and the persons, who had gathered at the site and it was found that there was no other educational institution, Mandir, Gurudwara, Masjid etc or any other sacred place nearby. Ld. Counsel for the appellants rightly pointed out that Ld. Sr. Civil Judge in the impugned order has not cared to refer to the findings recorded by the Ld. Local Commissioner, particularly when the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 10 in the present appeal) have not cared to file any objection to the same. Thus, the whole edifice of the case of the plaintiffs is baseless.
19. Thirdly, there is a merit in the plea advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that merely because a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the builder/occupier by the respondent No.12, S- DMC does not conclusively establish that the suit property has been raised or constructed in violation of building bylaws. There is no finality attached to the notice issued under Section 343(1) of the DMC Act and merely because such notice has been issued would not ipso facto lead to an assumption that the appellants have violated the building bylaws or that they are using the premises in contravention of provisions of MPD-21. There is no legal basis to hold that the user of the suit property is violation of clause 15.12.3 (iv) of the MPD-21, particularly when the appellants are paying the conversion charges for the built up structure in the suit property for commercial use as per the prescribed norms.
RCA-13/2022 Page 15 of 1820. It is admitted position that the appellants are contesting the notice and have put forth a reply and their main objection is that the suit property is protected by virtue of National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2017, which issue shall be decided by the Competent Authority based on documents produced by the parties. Infact, such course of action appears to be contrary to the stand of the S-DMC, which earlier was pleased enough to issue a certificate dated 20.10.2021 referred hereinabove. It appears from the Trial Court record that consequent to barrage of complaints by the locals, the matter has become politically explosive. Be that as it may, this Court is a "Court of Law", and is duty bound to decide the issue strictly in terms of the applicable laws and the question of morality of opening of liquor vend/shop and/or its impact on the society cannot be gone into by this Court at the instance of the plaintiffs. Government of NCT of Delhi has chosen to frame a new excise policy, based on which license typed L7V have been granted to the appellants and this Court can not question the legality or perversity of the policy framed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi in these proceedings.
21. Before parting with this case, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 6 cited the decision in the case of Residents Welfare Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2014 SCC Online Delhi 7212, where the issue was the legality of opening of liquor vend in CSC (Convenient Shopping Centre) and it was held that opening of liquor Vend in CSC was not prohibited under MPD-21 or for that matter under Master Plan in force earlier thereto. It is not understandable as to how this case law has any application in the present matter. To draw the curtains finally down in the matter, the plaintiffs are prima facie unable to RCA-13/2022 Page 16 of 18 demonstrate that defendants No. 1 to 3 are in any manner in foul with the relevant Rules or law in proposing to set up and open a liquor outlet. Grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction is an equitable relief, which could only rest in the realm of sound judicial discretion, detached from the notions of rich versus poor equation that probably swayed the judicial discretion of the ld Sr Civil Judge while passing the impugned order. The perception of risk, fear or alarm in the mind of the people in the area is too flimsy to be believed. Since the appellants have rigorously complied with the relevant law/rules on the subject so far, on weighing of competing claims, it is manifest that the appellants have been suffering irreparable losses and the balance of the convenience also lies in their favour since opening of the liquor shop is also resulting in colossal loss to the State exchequer from which various public welfare schemes are being funded besides loss of employment opportunities for the workers/staff to be deputed.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 is set aside. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC moved by the appellants is allowed, thereby vacating interlocutory status quo order dated 24.11.2021. Nothing contained herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The parties shall appear before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for further proceedings on date already fixed i.e., 26.04.2022 for completion of pleadings and consideration of various applications moved.
RCA-13/2022 Page 17 of 1823. Trial Court record along-with copy of this order be sent back forthwith. File of appeal be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.03.02
19:05:15 +0530
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
nd
on 2 March, 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
RCA-13/2022 Page 18 of 18