ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 11-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 403 
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2009) 
~EPTEMBER 11, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
~ 
Interlocutory Order: 
A 
B 
Writ petition against State instrumentality - Alleging c 
discrimination, bias and favoritism in allotment of land -
Interim relief also sought - Petition admitted while interim 
relief refused - On appeal, held: While deciding application 
* for interim relief, in a case alleging arbitrariness, bias and 
.J. favouritism, the court is required to form a tentative opinion 0 
as to whether there is substance in those a/legations -If facts 
of the case establish that the action of the State authority is 
arbitrary and violative of mandate of Article 14 of the 
Constitution - Interim relief may be granted even at a belated 
stage, if the case is based on fundamental rights - Interim E 
relief was refused by High Court without assigning any reason 
" - Delay on the part of the writ petitioner, in approaching the 
._ court has also been explained - Writ petitioner deseNes to 
be granted interim protection - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 14. 
Interim relief - Grant of - When - Discussed. 
F 
Appellant filed a writ petition, alleging arbitrariness, 
bias and favouritism, against respondent-Statutory 
Authority as regards allotment of land. Appellant also G 
~ sought interim relief. High Court admitted the petition, but 
refused to grant interim relief. However, it directed to 
expedite the hearing in the matter. Hence, the present 
appeal against refusal of interim relief. 
403 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Every action of the State or its 
instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and 
above-board' but should be without any affection or 
B aversion. It should neither be suggestive of 
discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of 
bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be 
made by the application of known principle and rules and 
in general such decision should be predictable and the 
citizen should know where he stands. However, if a 
C decision is taken without any principle or without any 
rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis 
to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. 
[Para 20] [417-A-C] 
o 
S. G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1967 
).. 
SC 1427; Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs. Kera/a Financial 
Corporation AIR 1988 SC 157, relied on. 
1.2. The action/order of the State or State 
E instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fide as 
it wou!d only be a case of colourable exercise of power. 
The Rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. -I 
[Para 21] [417-D] 
l.R. Coelho (dead) by LRs vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 
F 
2007 SC 861, relied on. 
1.3. In a case, as in the instant case, when the 
applicant approaches the court complaining against the 
Statutory Authority alleging arbitrariness, bias or 
G favouritism, the court, being custodian of law, must 
examine the averments made in the application to form 
~ 
a tentative opinion as to whether there is any substance 
in those allegations. Such a course is also required to be 
followed while deciding the application for interim relief. 
H [Para 22] [417-G-H; 418-A] 
I ; 
.... 
ZENIT MATAPLAST P. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 405 
AND ORS. 
' 
2.1. Interim order is passed on the basis of prima A 
""" 
facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed 
as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo 
till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter 
does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli 
before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory B 
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. [Para 
23] [418-A-C] 
c 
·- ... 
Anand Prasad Agarwal/a vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad and Ors. 
AIR 2001 SC 2367; State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka 
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694; Colgate 
> 
Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 
... 
3105, relied on. 
D 
2.2. Grant of an interim relief in regard to the nature 
and extent thereof depends upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case as no strait-jacket formula 
can be laid down
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.