BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. versus BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 11-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. 
B 
v. 
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS. 
MAY 11, 2005 
(N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Development 
Control Regulations, 199J_.;..Regu/ation 58-Regulation 58-Closure of Textile 
C Mills-Scheme under the Regulation for development of the mills and the land 
of the mills, as per BIFR approved rehabilitation scheme-Amendment of the_ 
Regulation in view of its failure-Amendment challenged in Public interest 
Litigation-interim order by High Court-However, permitting Textile 
Corporation complete the sale of few of its mills-on appeal, held: Completion 
of sale by Textile Corporation permissible in terms of scheme of BJFR subject 
D to condition of adujstment of land from other mills in case of success of the 
petition-Jn cases where lay out are sanctioned or commencement certificaies 
issued, statutory authorities directed to process the application in accordance 
with law. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908-0rder XXXJX-lnterim Order-In Public 
E interest Litigation-Criteria for consideration-Held: Before passing an interim 
order in such cases, the Court should consider as to whether a prima facie 
case existed, whether in case of refusal of injunction irreparable injury is 
caused to the petitioners and balance of convenience. 
On account of strike by workmen 58 textile mills, 25 belonging to 
F National Textile Corporation and 33 belonging to private parties, were 
closed. Development Control Rules, 1967 framed in terms of Maharashtra 
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 were amended and Development 
Control Regulations, 1991 were framed. Regulation 58 of the Regulations 
permitted modernization of mills and development of surplus mill lands 
G as a part of ~IFR approved rehabilitation .schemes. As the 1991 
Regulatiosn were found not workable, Regulation 58 was amended in 2001. 
Respondent No.I filed writ petition in the nature of Public Interest 
Litigation seeking striking down of-amendment of Regulation 58 in 2001. 
High Court passed two interim orders. However, it permitted National 
H 
282 
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD. v. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP 
283 
Textile Corporation to proceed with the sale of its mills subject to certain A 
conditions. Jt also directed the State and the Municipal Corporation to 
file large number of documents. Hence the present appeal against the 
interim order. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Before an interim order is passed, and in particular, in 
a public interest litigation, the court must consider the question as regards 
existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience as also the question 
B 
as to whether the writ petitioners shall suffer an irreparable injury, if the 
injunction sought for is refused. The courts normally do not pass an C 
interlocutory order which would affect a person without giving an 
opportunity of hearing to him. Only in extreme cases, an ad interim order 
can be passed but even therefor, the parameters as laid down by this Court 
in Morgan Stanley case are required to be complied with. The courts while 
passing an order of interim injunction must also consider the parameters 
of a Public Interest Litigation. 1293-G; 294-A) 
D 
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund etc. v. Kartick Das etc., (1994) 4 SCC 
225; Dr.B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj 
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 590, relied 
on. 
Andhra Bank v. Official Liquidator and Anr. (2005) 3 SCALE 178, 
referred to. 
E 
1.2. The courts, however, have to strike a balance between two 
extre~e positions, viz., whether the writ petition would itself become 
infructuous if interim order is refused, on the one hand, and the enormity F 
of lo.sses 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. [295-A, BJ 
Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2004) 4 sec 697, relied on. G 
1.3. In appropriate cases, the petitioners should be put on 
appropriate terms such as providing an indemnity or an adequate 
undertaking to make good the loss or damage in the event the PIL filed is 
dismissed. (295-G) 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., (19991 
t SCC 492 and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.