RAGHBIR SINGH GILL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELEVANT facts arising in connection with the grant of ad interim ex parte stay may only be stated. The R. T. O. , Balasore asked the applicant to produce the vehicle On 23-7-1973, At about 10 a. m. a 1973 model vehicle worth about Rs. 1 lakh was produced before the R. T. O. The vehicle Was found to be according to specification and the route permit was about to issue when at about 12. 30 p. m. of that day the stay order was received from the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ore-sided over by Sri m. J. Rao, a District Judge. The stay order was granted in an appeal filed by the opposite party No. 3 on 21-7-1973. The Member, Tribunal dispensed with notice and granted the ad Interim ex parte injunction. On 21-7-1973 Counsel on behalf of the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal to vacate stay. The opposite party No. 3 filed a counter on 27-7-1973 and the matter was heard at length on that day. The Tribunal by his order dated 30-7-1973 came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and the public and by grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, the petitioner was to suffer heavy irreparable loss every day and that the opposite party No. 3 underwent no loss. After recording his conclusion that he would determine the question of existence of a prima facie case at the time of hearing the appeal, the Tribunal refused to vacate stay. In other words, the ex parte ad interim injunction was made absolute. He thereafter took steps to fix a date of hearing. It is against the order granting injunction and stay that this writ application has been filed.

(2.) ORDINARILY in an interim matter this Court is reluctant to interfere. But this is a case where there has been gross abuse of judicial power. Once a permit was granted it was open to the Tribunal to expedite hearing of the appeal, but in no circumstances he would have granted stay. On his own finding the grant of injunction caused inconvenience not only to the petitioner, but also to the public and the petitioner was undergoing loss every day. No unusual case has been made out by opposite party No. 3 as to why stay would be granted in a case where the permit has been granted by the R. T. O. We are somewhat surprised that a Senior district Judge has exercised his power contrary to law and principles to be followed in the matter of grant of injunction. He was well aware of the direction in the general Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court, apart from the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Ordinarily ex parte ad interim injunctions are not to be granted unless notice is served on the other side. No party should be allowed to use the Court for perpetration of injustice without the opposite party being heard.

(3.) WE are clearly of opinion that the Tribunal has exercised his jurisdiction illegally in granting injunction. The order of the Tribunal granting stay of operation of the order of the R. T. O. and injunction is vacated.