y
WELFARE ASSOCIATION, SECTOR 7, ·
URBAN ESTATE, FARIDABAD
v.
RAJIV KAPOOR AND ORS.
MARCH 20, 1996
(K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.J
A
B
Enviro11me11tal Law-Uroa11 Developmelll Autltority-Pla11--Green Belt
Area-Conversion into petrol pump by respondents-injunction sought against C
by Welfare Association-Ad interim injunction granted by Trial Court-Va-
cated subsequently-Appel/ate Court also granting ad illlerim injunc-
tion-Vacation of order of Appellate Court and affimiatio11 of that of Trial
Court by High Court-AppeaHfeld, High Court was not wholly unjustified
in inteifering with order of Appellate Coun-111 view of pendency of suit in- D
teiference with order of High Court held not called Joi-Direction to Trial
Judge to dispose of the suit expeditiously-Pending disposal of suit respon-
dents to continue to rnn petrol pzanp subject to decision in suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5269 of
1996.
I!
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.R.P. No. 1191 of 1995.
Gopal Subramaniam, A. Rawal, Rajesh Kr. Sharma and Goodwill
Indeevar for the Appellants.
F
Dushyant Dave, Vivek Sibal, S.M. Sareen, P.N. Puri for the Respon-
dents.
R.K. Jain for the Respondent 2.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counse! on both sides.
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned
single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana passed in Civil H
695
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 3 S.C.R.
A Revision Petition No. 1191 of 1995. The appellant- Association is seeking
preservation of the green belt in Sector 7 marked in the plans prepared by
the Faridabad Urban Development Authority. The appellant had filed a
civil suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from convert-
ing the green belt into a petrol pump to be run by the first respondent.
B
c
The trial Court, pending suit, though initially it had granted ad- interim
injunction, vacated the same. The District Judge held that prim a facie case
for granting injunction was made out against the respondents. Accordingly
ad-interim injunction was granted. On revision, the High Court has vacated
the order of the appellate Court and affirmed that of the trial Court. Thus
this appeal by special leave.
After spending considerable time, in view of the material on record,
we cannot hold that the High Court is wholly unjustified in interfering with
the order of the appellate Court. However, since the suit is pending, we
decline to go into the merits of the case. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order of the High Court. However, the observations and
D findings recorded by the courts below should not in any way affect the final
disposal of the suit. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we think
that the trial Judge should dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible
I
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
'1
Pending disposal of the suit, the first respondent is at liberty to continue
E to run the petrol pump, as it exists today, without causing any detriment to
the environment. Any action taken by the first respondent would be subject
to the result in the suit. It is needless to mention that the first respondent
is not entitled to plead any equity at the time of disposal of the suit.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No Costs.
F
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex