SAMARENRA CH SEN Vs. ST OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH, normally, upon an application for vacating an interim injunction the Court uses as little words as are indispensable, in the instant case, the Court has to give its reasons in full inasmuch as the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the applicants, namely, the State of West Bengal and the superior Police officials who are respondents in the main Rule, made some comments which would suggest that the interim injunction which was issued on the 29th July, 1966, had been issued wantonly or, at least, indifferently. Since the Court acts by the method of persuasion and not by flat, it has to give its reasons, particularly when the order of injunction which the applicants challenge had been issued ex parte.

(2.) IN order to explain why the interim order was made, we have to start with the issue of the Rule nisi, since the former is dependent upon the latter.

(3.) IT is now settled by the Supreme Court that a petition under article 226 of the Constitution should not be dismissed in limine but a Rule nisi should be issued calling for a return upon the allegations made by the petitioner where the petition discloses a prima jade case or raises some arguable issue or makes allegations of mala fides or the like which needs be controverted (1) B. I. Corporation v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1957 SC 354 (356), (2) Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725, (3) Himanshu v. Jyoti Prakash, AIR 1964 SC 1636 (1641), (4) Ghasiram Oil Mills v. L. A. Tribunal, (1963) 2 SCR 845, (5) Bishnu Narain v. I. T. O. , 1965 SC (CA 493 of 1964), and for this purpose, the Court would even allow the petitioner to amend his petition where it discloses a prima facie case but is technically defective (6) Dwarka v. I. T. O. , (1965) II SCA 868 (879 ).