CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 930 of 1990 PETITIONER: INDRA SAWHNEY & ORS. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/1991 BENCH: RANGNATH MISRA (CJ) & K.N. SINGH & M.H. KANIA & KULDIP SINGH & P.B. SAWANT JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT 1992 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCC 212 The Order of the Court is as follows

1. We had adjourned the matter on the earlier occasion till today to provide an opportunity to <ORG> to place before us its clear stand as to whether the Notification dated August 13, 1990 was being implemented or not

2. A memo has been filed today by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the following effect "The Government of India Office Memorandum dated August 13, 1990 provided for reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in civil posts/services under <ORG>

2. The present government is fully committed to the principle of reservation for SEBCs. In implementing the policy of reservation, the government intend to give preference to the poorer sections among SEBCs, while ensuring that, if candidates are not available from poorer sections, the benefits will go to other members of the backward classes. In addition, government also intend to provide reservation for other economically backward sections of the people who are not covered by any existing scheme of reservation

3. While the aforesaid OM can be amended to reflect the government's policy, government believe that any such step should be taken in consultation with other political parties to avoid controversies. This has been categorically stated in <ORG> on behalf of government

4. Government believe that social justice has to be promoted in an atmosphere of social harmony and peace. It is, therefore, necessary that the issues in this regard should be discussed first among major political parties and, if possible, a consensus evolved

5. To evolve such consensus among major political parties, government need some time, especially in the present difficult situation facing the country. A minimum period of two months is required to complete this exercise. Government prays for adjournment of the hearing of the case accordingly. Government wants to assure the <ORG> that it would utilise the time given to it for undertaking full and effective consultations with all concerned in the interest of evolving a generally acceptable solution."

On the basis of what is stated in the memorandum, learned Additional Solicitor General wants two months' adjournment of the hearing

3. Mr <NAME> raises serious objections to any adjournment of hearing of the cases by filing a counter memorandum indicating therein that all the points which have arisen for argument would still exist as issues requiring attention of the <ORG> even if that is proposed by <ORG> is done. It is, therefore appropriate according to him that the hearing of the matters should continue

4. Mr <NAME> says that we should continue the hearing to decide the constitutional validity of the Mandal Commission Report

5. Some counsel on the side of the petitioners state that we should await the new formulation

6. The validity of the Mandal Commission Report as such is not in issue before us. What we have been called upon to decide is the validity of the Government Order of August 13, 1990. It is true that some of the aspects which Mr <NAME> has indicated may have to be argued even if the new formulation comes but a constitutional question should not be argued in a vacuum and until we know the exact text of the government order which is sought to be formulated, it may not be appropriate at all to enter into the stage of hearing of the matter just because some issues may be common

7. In these circumstances, we adjourn the matter to September 24, 1991 but we would suggest to <ORG> to take appropriate steps as early as possible so that the proposed decision is taken and in case it is finalised at any time prior to September 24, 1991 we would like the learned Additional Solicitor-General to mention that fact to this Court so that the hearing may be appropriately preponed

8. Mr <NAME> then contended that the embargo put by the court on the operation of the order dated August 13, 1990 which has been in force for almost a year now should be withdrawn in view of the fact that <ORG> is not able to take any decision

9. On an overall assessment of the situation we are of the view that we should not interfere with our interlocutory order at this stage. We would look forward for early hearing of the matter and as we have suggested, if the matter is available to be pre-poned even though we have fixed September 24, 1991 as the date of hearing it may be so done. <ORG> is not affected by our order of stay in reaching its decision

10. We hope and trust that counsel for all the parties who are yet to be heard will cooperate by furnishing written notes in advance before the hearing begins so that we may be able to regulate the hearing of the matter and get reasonable time for the judgment to be prepared and delivered.


PETITIONER: SHIV KUMAR CHADHA ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1993 BENCH: <NAME> BENCH: <NAME> VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) SAWANT, P.B. CITATION: 1993 SCR (3) 522 1993 SCC (3) 161 JT 1993 (3) 238 1993 SCALE (2)772 ACT: % Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9-Civil <ORG>'s jurisdiction- Ouster when. Delhi Municipal <ORG> Act, 195: Sections 343 , 347E -Suits in connection with orders passed or proceedings initiated for demolition of constructions- Maintainability of-Directions of Supreme <ORG>. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39, Rule 3, proviso Temporary injunction-Granting of- When-<ORG>'s duty-Reasons for grant of injunction-Mandatory to record-<ORG> directions. HEADNOTE: In respect of some private dispute between two neighbors a writ application was filed in <ORG>. On the material produced in the case it was treated as a Public Interest Litigation and <ORG> was to rind out a solution in respect (if unauthorised constructions alleged to have been made by different owners/occupiers/builders without sanctioned plans or by making deviations from the sanctioned plans. <ORG> wanted to ensure that such unauthorised constructions were not perpetuated on the basis of interim orders of injunction passed by <ORG>. <ORG> disposed of the petition holding that the owners/ occupiers/builders were to be given liberty to file fresh building plans and that <ORG> was to examine such building plans in accordance with law and that the <ORG> was to seal and to demolish those constructions which were beyond the compoundable limits. <ORG> also directed that no civil suit would be entertained by any <ORG> in Delhi in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken by the <ORG> with regard to the sealing and/or demolition of any building or any part thereof. <ORG> directed further that person aggrieved by an order of sealing or demolition had the right to file an appeal to <ORG> under the Delhi Municipal <ORG> Act, 1957. 522 523 Against <ORG>'s order the present appeals were filed by special leave. On the question, "whether the jurisdiction of the <ORG> has been statutorily barred in respect of suits in connection with the orders passed or proceedings initiated for demolition of constructions, which have been made without sanction or by deviating from the sanctioned plans", allowing the appeals, this <ORG>, HELD:1.1. With the increase in the number of taxing statutes, welfare legislations and enactments to protect a class of citizens,a trend can be noticed that most of such legislations confer decision making powers on various authorities and they seek to limit or exclude <ORG>'s power to review those decisions. The result is that the power of the <ORG> under section 9 of the Code is being denuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of liabilities created or rights conferred. The ouster of the jurisdiction of the <ORG> is upheld on the finding that the rights or liabilities in question had been created by the Act in question and remedy provided therein Was adequate. (535-D-F) 1.2.The situation will be different where a statute purports to curb and curtail a pre-existing common law right and purports to oust the jurisdiction of the <ORG> so far remedy against the orders passed under such statute are concerned. In such cases,the courts have to be more vigilant, while examining the question as to whether an adequate redressal machinery has been provided, before which the person aggrieved may agitate his grievance. (535-G) 1.3.In spite of the bar placed on the power of the <ORG>, orders passed under such statutes can be examined on "jurisdictional question". A suit will be-maintainable. (536-F) <NAME> v. <NAME>, AIR 1974 SC 1069; <CITATION> , AIR 1964 SC 807; <ORG> v. <ORG>, 1960 A.C. 260 and <CITATION> , 1969 2 AC 147, relied on. <ORG> v. <NAME>,  6 524 C.B. (N.S.) 336; <NAME> v. <ORG> Newspaper Limited.  Appeal Cases 368; <NAME> v. <NAME>,  Appeal Cases 615; <CITATION> ., AIR 1940 P.C. 105; <CITATION> . <ORG>, Ludhiana, AIR 1963 SC 1547; <CITATION> , AIR 1964 SC 322; <CITATION> , AIR 1965 SC 1942; <CITATION> , AIR 1966 SC 893; <CITATION> and sons, AIR 1966 SC 1738; <CITATION> , 3 SCR 214; <CITATION> , 3 SCR 736; <CITATION> , AIR 1969 SC 78; <CITATION> , AIR 1975 SC 2238= 1 SCC 496; <CITATION> , AIR 1977 SC 955=  2 SCC 472; <CITATION> , AIR 1979 SC 1250= 3 SCC 83; <NAME> v. Grain Panchayat, Mehal Kalan, AIR 1986 SC 2197=4 SCC 364; <CITATION> , AIR 1988 SC 752=  SCC 681 and <NAME> v. GobindRam Bohra,  1 SCC 193, referred to. 1.4. The Delhi Municipal <ORG> Act purports to regulate the common law right of the citizens to erector construct buildings of their choice. This right existed since time immemorial. But with the urbanisation and development of the concept of planned city, regulations, restrictions, on such common law right have been imposed. But as the provisions of the Act intend to regulate and restrict a common law right, and not any right or liability created under the Act itself, it cannot be said that the right and the remedy have been given unoflatu e.g. "in the same breath". (537-E) 1.5. In spite of the bar prescribed under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 343 and section 347E of the <ORG> Act over the power of the <ORG>s, under certain special circumstances,the <ORG> can examine, whether the dispute falls within the ambit of the Act. But once the <ORG> is satisfied that either the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the building in question or the basic procedural requirements which are vital in nature, have not been followed, it shall have jurisdiction, to enquire and investigate while protecting the common law rights of the citizens. (537-C) 1.6. The regulations and bye-laws in respect of buildings, are meant to 525 serve the public interest. But at the same time it cannot be held that in all circumstances, the authorities entrusted with the demolition of unauthorised constructions, have exclusive power, to the absolute exclusion of the power of the <ORG>. In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the <ORG> is established, a suit shall be maintainable. (538-C) 1.7. The <ORG> should not ordinarily entertain a suit in connection with the proceedings initiated for demolition by the Commissioner, in terms of section 343 (1) (of the <ORG> Act . The <ORG> should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before <ORG> and then before the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. (538-D) 1.8. The <ORG> should entertain a suit questioning the validity of an order passed under section 343 of the Act, only if the <ORG> is of prima facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because of any "jurisdictional error" in exercise of the power by the Commissioner or that the order is outside the Act. (538-E) 2.1. A party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course. Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the <ORG> and such discretion is to he exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the <ORG> that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. (538-H) 2.2.The purpose of temporary injunction is, to maintain the status quo. The <ORG> grants such relief according to the legal principles- ex debite justitiae. Before any such order is passed the <ORG> must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. (539B) 2.3. 'The <ORG> should be always willing to extend its hand to protect a citizen who is being wronged or is being deprived of a property without any authority in law (or without following the procedure which are fundamental and vital in nature. But at the same time the judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the <ORG>. (539- 1)) 526 2.4. Power to grant injunction is an extra-ordinary power vested in the <ORG> to he exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The <ORG>s have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to he affected by the order so passed. (539-E) 2.5. In spite of the statutory requirement, in order 39, Rule 3 the <ORG>s have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that <ORG> has prejudged the issues involved in the suit. This is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders. Any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party,, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that now in view of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39, there is no scope for any argument. When the statute itself requires reasons to he recorded, the <ORG> cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant (539-H, 540-H) 2.6. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to he done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. <NAME> v. <NAME>, (1875)1 Ch. D. 426; <CITATION> , AIR 1936 PC 253 and <CITATION> , AIR 1975 SC 915, relied on. 2.7. Whenever a <ORG> considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an exparty order is not passed. But any such exparty order should be in force up to a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned. (541-C) Supreme <ORG> Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, referred to. 527 2.8.The <ORG> should first direct the plaintiff to serve a copy of the application with a copy of the plaint along with relevant documents on the counsel for the <ORG> or any competent authority of the <ORG> and the order should be passed only after hearing the parties. (541-F) 2.9.If the circumstances of a case so warrant and where the <ORG> is of the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, the <ORG> should record reasons for its opinion as required by proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, before passing an order for injunction. The <ORG> must direct that such order shall operate only for a period of two weeks, during which notice along with copy of the application, plaint and relevant documents should be served on the competent authority or the counsel for the <ORG>. Affidavit of service of notice should be filed as provided by proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 aforesaid. If the <ORG> has entered appearance, any such ex parte order of injunction should be extended only after hearing the counsel for the <ORG>. (541-H, 542- A) 2.10.While passing an exparte order of injunction the <ORG> shall direct the plaintiff to give an undertaking that he will not make any further construction upon the premises till the application for injunction is finally heard and disposed of. (512-C) JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2531-33 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of <ORG> in C.W.P. No. 3499 of 1989.

<NAME>, <NAME>, Ms. <NAME> and Ms. <NAME> for the Appellants.

<NAME>, <NAME> and <NAME> for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by <NAME> Special leave granted.

These appeals have been filed against an order passed by <ORG> directing <ORG> (hereinafter referred to as "the <ORG>") to issue appropriate notices to the owners/occupiers/builders of the building where illegal constructions have been made. A liberty has been given to the owners/occupiers/builders to file fresh buildings plans with the <ORG> in conformity with the existing bye- laws. The building plans as filed are to be examined in accordance with the law. The <ORG> has been directed that if it finds that the constructions are beyond the compoundable limits, then to seal the same and to demolish thereafter.

The appellants have no grievance so far as the aforesaid part of the order is concerned. They have sought interference of this <ORG> with the other part of the order, where it has been said that "no civil suit will be entertained by any court in Delhi in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken by the <ORG> with regard to the sealing and/or demolition of any building or any part thereof. Any person aggrieved by an order of sealing or demolition which is passed shall, however, have the right of filing an appeal to <ORG> under the Municipal Act. <ORG> is the only forum which has the jurisdiction to grant interim relief." The other part of the order in respect of which objection has been taken is where the <ORG> has directed the <ORG> to approach those courts which have already issued injunction "for variation and vacation of the injunction orders in the light of" the said order.

Initially a writ application was filed in respect of some private dispute between two neighbours. In due course on the material produced by one party or the other it was treated as a Public Interest Litigation and by the impugned order <ORG> has purported to find out a solution in respect of unauthorised constructions alleged to have been made by different owners/ occupiers/builders in the different parts of the city without sanctioned plans or by making deviations from the plans which had been sanctioned. The Court has also purported to ensure that such unauthorised constructions are not perpetuated on the basis of interim orders of injunction passed by Civil Courts. It cannot be disputed that by the impugned order the jurisdiction of any Court in Delhi to entertain any suit in connection with demolition of any part of any building which, according to the <ORG>, is unauthorised and illegal has been ousted.

The Delhi Municipal <ORG> Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the <ORG> Act ") has made provisions for the constitution of the <ORG> and has prescribed the procedure for election of the councillors, levy of taxes, sanitation and public health. Chapter XVI contains provisions regarding erection of buildings within the <ORG> area. Section 331 defines the expression "to erect a building". Section 332 says that" no person shall erect or commence to erect any building or execute any of the works specified in section 334 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner". The relevant part of section 343 is as follows:-

"343. Order of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works in certain cases and appeal .................................... (2)Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner made under sub-section (1) may prefer an appeal against the order to <ORG> within the period specified in the order for the demolition of the erection or work to which it relates.

(3)Where an appeal is preferred under sub-section(2)against an order of demolition, <ORG> may, subject of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 347 C, stay the enforcement of that order on such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may think fit:

Provided that where the erection of any building or execution of any work has not been completed at the time of the making of the order of demolition, no order staying the enforcement of the order of demolition shall be made by <ORG> unless security, sufficient in the opinion of the said <ORG> has been given by the appellant for not proceeding with such erection or work pending the disposal of the appeal.

(4)No Court shall entertain any suit, application or order proceeding for injunction or other relief against the Commissioner to restrain him from taking any action or making any order in pursuance of the provisions of this section.

(5)Subject to an order made by the Administrator on appeal under section 347 D, every order made by <ORG> on appeal under this section, and subject to the orders of the Administrator and <ORG> on appeal. the order of demolition nude by the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive".

Section 344 vests power in the Commissioner to stop the construction of the building where the erection of such building or execution of any work has been commenced or is being carried on either without sanction or contrary to sanction so granted or in contravention of any condition subject to which sanction has been accorded. Under section 345A , the Commissioner at any time, before or after making an order of demolition under section 343 or of the stoppage of the erection of any building or execution of any work under section 343 , can make an order directing the sealing of such erection or work or of the premises in which such erection or work is being carried or has been completed. A further appeal has been. provided under section 347D to the Administrator against the order of <ORG>. Section 347E says:- "347E. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.

(1) After the commencement of section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice appealable under section 343 or section 347B and no such order or notice shall be called in question otherwise then by preferring an appeal under these sections.

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), every suit, application or other proceeding pending in any court immediately before the commencement of section (7) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, in respect of any order or notice appealable under section 343 or section 347B , shall continue to be dealt with and disposed of by that court as if the said section had not been brought into force."

Because of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 343 and section 347E aforesaid the stand of the <ORG> is that the Courts have been debarred from entertaining suits, applications or proceedings for injunction, against any order or notice for demolition and the order of demolition passed by the Commissioner, subject to appeals before <ORG> and Administrator shall be deemed to be final and conclusive.

In spite of several pronouncements of this <ORG> during the last four decades, the question as to whether the jurisdiction of the <ORG> has been statutorily barred in respect of suits in connection with the orders passed or proceedings initiated for demolition of constructions, which have been made without sanction or by deviating from the sanctioned plans, has to be answered.

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") says that <ORG>s shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature "except suits of which their cognizance is either express Iyor impliedly barred".According to the <ORG> once the jurisdiction of the <ORG> to try a suit in which the validity of any order passed under the provisions of the <ORG> Act or the notice issued thereunder has been specifically barred and an internal remedy has been provided for redressal of the grievances of the persons concerned, there is no scope for <ORG> to entertain a suit.

In the olden days the source of most of the rights and liabilities could be traced to the common law. Then statutory enactments were few. Even such enactments only created rights or liabilities but seldom provided forums for remedies. The result was that any person having a grievance that he had been wronged or his fight was being affected, could approach the ordinary <ORG> on the principle of law that where there is a right there is a remedy-ubi jus ibi remedium. As no internal remedy had been provided in the different statutes creating rights or liabilities, the ordinary <ORG>s had to examine the grievances in the light of different statutes. With the concept of the Welfare State, it was realised that enactments creating liabilities in respect of payment of taxes obligations after vesting of estates and conferring rights on a class of citizens, should be complete codes by themselves. With that object in view, forums were created under the Acts themselves where grievances could be entertained on behalf of the persons aggrieved. Provisions were also made for appeals and revision to higher authorities. Then a question arose as to where a particular Act had created a right or liability and had also provided a forum for enforcement of such right or for protection from enforcement of a liability without any authority in law, whether a citizen could approach a <ORG>. It may be pointed out that many statutes have created certain rights or liabilities and have also provided the remedial measures in respect thereof. But such statutes have not touched the common law rights of the citizen. But there are some statutes, which in public interest affect even the common law rights or liabilities of toe citizen, which were in the nature of existing rights. The distinction between the two types of rights or liabilities is subtle in nature but at the same time very vital.

In one of the earliest case of <ORG> v.

<NAME>, (1859) 6 C.B. (N.S.) 336, <NAME>, J, said:- "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law: there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common-law remedy, and the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy: there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class, viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. The present case falls within this latter class, if any liability at all exists. The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class." The same view was reiterated by <ORG> in <NAME> v. <ORG>, (1919) Appeal Cases 368. In <NAME> v. <NAME>, (1897) AC 615, it was said:-

"I do not think the appellant can claim to recover by virtue of the statute, and at the same time insist upon doing so by means other than those prescribed by the statute which alone confers the right."

It was further pointed out "The right and the remedy are given uno flatu, and the one cannot be dissociated from the other."

In the well-known case of <CITATION> ., AIR 1940 Privy Council 105, this question was considered in connection with Sea Customs Act (1878). It was said:- "It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of <ORG> is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also well settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, <ORG> have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principle of judicial procedure."

But having enunciated the general principle in respect of ouster of the jurisdiction of <ORG> it was said:- "But, in their Lordships' opinion, neither Sec, 32 nor the principle involved in the decision in 401 A 48, affect the validity of an Act of the Indian Legislature which creates an obligation and provides an exclusive Code for its determination such an obligation is not covered by sub s. (2) of Section 32 ."

In connection with the imposition of Terminal Tax on salt under the Punjab Municipal Act. <CITATION> committee. Ludhiana, AIR 1963 SC 1547, it was said that where a statute created a liability and provided a remedy, party aggrieved should pursue the remedy provided under the Act. A Constitution Bench of this Court in <CITATION> , AIR 1964 SC 322, considered the provisions of Madras General Sales Tax Act and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of <ORG>. It was pointed out that there was an express and unambiguous prohibition and no suit could be entertained by <ORG>. In connection with the Bombay Sales Tax Act the same view was reiterated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in <CITATION> AIR 1965 SC 1942. <CITATION> chand, AIR 1966 SC 893, a Constitution Bench examined the bar on the jurisdiction of <ORG> in connection with the <ORG> and TenantsU.P. (Temporary) control of Rent and Eviction Act , and came to the conclusion that a special statute had excluded the jurisdiction in clear and unambiguous words and it had provided an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party. That may be aggrieved by the relevant order and as such the jurisdiction of <ORG> had been ousted. This very question was examined in State of Kerala v. MI s <NAME> and sons, AIR 1966 SC 1738, in connection with the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act and it was held that the jurisdiction of <ORG> would be deemed to have been excluded because the legislature had set up a special tribunal to determine the question relating to rights or liabilities. which had been created by the statute. Again in connection with the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act , in <CITATION> ,  3 SCR 214 and <CITATION> ,  3 SCR 736, it was held that complete machinery for adjudication of all claims had been provided under the Act and there being a bar on the jurisdiction of any court, the Act over-rides other laws, including Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there was no scope for <ORG> to entertain any suit.

The Constitution Bench in <NAME> v. State of Madya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78, said:-

"Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not."

In connection with the Industrial Disputes Act , in <CITATION> . AIR 1975 SC 2238 =  1 SCC 496, it was pointed out that "<ORG> will have no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon an industrial dispute, if it concerned enforcement of certain right or liability created only under the Act. " The jurisdiction of <ORG> in connection with the levy of octroi duty under the C.P. and Barar Municipalities Act, 1922 was examined by this Court in <CITATION> , AIR 1977 SC 955 1 9771 2 SCC 472, and held it was barred.

Whether the Court can hear and determine suits relating to levy of professional tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1971 was examined in the case of <CITATION> . Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 =  3 SCC 83, and it was held:-

Where a Revenue Statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excludes." It was pointed out in <CITATION> , AIR 1986 SC 2197 =  4 SCC 364, that when by a special statute rights have been created and jurisdiction of the <ORG> has been barred then the jurisdiction of the <ORG> to try such suits has been taken away. In the case of <CITATION> , AIR 1988 SC 752 =  1 SCC 68 1, it was said:-

"... Wherever a right, not preexisting in common-law is created by a statute and that statute itself provided a machinery for the enforcement of the right, both the right and the remedy having been created uno flatu and a finality is intended to the result of the statutory proceedings, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary provision the civil courts'jurisdiction is impliedly barred." The jurisdiction of <ORG> to entertain a suit for ejectment was examined in <NAME> v. GobindRam Bohra, [1990] 1 SCC 193, and it was held that the Rent Control Act was a complete Code and the jurisdiction to try a case for ejectment was exclusive under that Act. With the increase in the number of taxing statutes, welfare legislations and enactments to protect a class of citizens, a trend can be noticed that most of such legislations confer decision making powers on various authorities and they seeks to limit or exclude <ORG>'s power to review those decisions. The result is that the power of the <ORG> under section 9 of the Code is being denuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of liabilities created or rights conferred. This <ORG> in the judgments referred to above has upheld the ouster of the jurisdiction of the <ORG> on examination of two questions (1) Whether the right or liability in respect whereof grievance has been made, had been created under an enactment and it did not relate to a pre-existing common law right? (2) Whether the machinery provided for redressal of the grievance in respect of infringement of such right or imposition of a liability under such enactment, was adequate and complete? The ouster of the jurisdiction of the <ORG> was upheld on the finding that the rights or liabilities in question had been created by the Act in question and remedy provided therein was adequate.

But the situation will be different where a statute purports to curb and curtail a pre-existing common law right and purports to oust the jurisdiction of the <ORG> so far remedy against the orders passed under such statute are concerned. In such cases, the courts have to be more vigilant, while examining the question as to whether an adequate redressal machinery has been provided, before which the, person aggrieved may agitate his grievance. In the case of katikara Chintamani Dora v. <NAME>, AIR 1974 SC 1069, this <ORG> after referring to the case of <CITATION> , AIR 1964 SC 807, observed:-

"It was pertinently added that this exclusion of the jurisdiction of <ORG> would be subject to two limitations. First, <ORG>s have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The second is as regards the exact extent to which the powers of statutory tribunals are exclusive. The question as to whether any particular case falls under the first or the second of the above categories would depend on the purpose of the statute and its general scheme, taken in conjunction with the scope of the enquiry entrusted to the tribunal set up and other relevant factors." It was held that a suit for declaration that "the decision of the Settlement Officer/Tribunal holding certain properties to be an 'estate' under section 3(2) (d) of the 1908 Act was void, was maintainable on the ground that the suit property was not an'inam village'. In <ORG> v. <ORG>,  A.C. 260, the appellants sought a declaration of their common law right to quarry their land without the need to obtain planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. In that connection it was said:-

"The appellant company are given no new right of quarrying by the Act of 1947. Their right is a common law right and the only question is how far it has been taken away. They do not uno flatu claim under the Act and seek a remedy elsewhere. On the contrary, they deny that they come within its purview and seek a declaration to that effect."

In spite of the bar placed on the power of the <ORG>. orders passed under such statutes can be examined on "jurisdictional question". To illustrate-, a special machinery has been provided for removal of the encroachments from public land' under different enactments in different states and the jurisdiction of the <ORG> has been barred in respect of the orders passed by such special tribunals or authorities constituted under such Acts. Still a suit will be maintainable before a <ORG> on a plea that the land in question shall not be deemed to be public land within the meaning of the definition of public land given in the Act in question, and as such provisions thereof shall not be applicable.

In the case of <ORG> v. <ORG>, (1969) 2 AC 147, a wide interpretation has been given to the word 'jurisdiction' by <ORG>. It was pointed out that in many cases where although the <ORG> has jurisdiction to enter upon an enquiry, it has done or failed to do something in the course of such enquiry which is of such a nature that its decision becomes a nullity. By mere reference to different provisions of the Corporation Act it shall appear that the Act does not create any right or liability. Chapter XVI of the Act only purports to regulate the erection of the buildings within the Corporation area, so that erections of the buildings within the Corporation area are systematic, planned and do not adopt the character of mushroom growth. In view of the Provisions of the Act , whenever it is discovered that erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced or is being carried or has been completed, either without sanction or contrary to the sanction or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction had been accorded, the Commissioner can make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished. Any person aggrieved by an order has been given a right to prefer an appeal before <ORG> and thereafter to the Administrator. Subject to any order passed by the Appellate <ORG> and the Administrator, the order for demolition shall be deemed to be final and conclusive.

According to us, it cannot be urged that the provisions of the Act have created any right or liability and for enforcement thereof remedy has been provided under the Act itself. The Act purports to regulate the common law right of the citizens to erect or construct buildings of their choice. This right existed since time immorial. But with the urbanisation and development of the concept of planned city, regulations, restrictions, on such common law right have been imposed. But as the provisions of the Act intend to regulate and restrict a common law right, and not any right liability created under the Act itself, it cannot be said that the right and the remedy have become given uno flatu e.g. "in the same breath". Most of the cases of this Court referred to above related to statutes creating rights or liabilities and providing remedies at the same time. As such the principles enunciated therein, shall not be fully applicable in the present case. In spite of the bar prescribed under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 343 and section 347E of the <ORG> Act over the power of the <ORG>, under certain special circumstances, the Court can examine, whether the dispute falls within the ambit of the Act. But once the Court is satisfied that either the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the building in question or the basic procedural requirements which are vital in nature, have not been followed, it shall have jurisdiction, to enquire and investigate while protecting the common law rights of the citizens. Can a Court hold a suit to be not maintainable, although along with the plaint materials are produced to show that the building in question is not within the <ORG> limits, or that the constructions were made prior to coming into force of the relevant provisions of the Act? We are conscious of the fact that persons who make unauthorised constructions by contravening and violating the building bye-laws or regulations often run to <ORG>, with pleas mentioned above, specially that no notice was issued or served on them, before the <ORG> has ordered the demolition of the construction.

It is well-known that in most of the cities building regulations and bye-laws have been framed, still it has been discovered that constructions have been made without any sanction or in contravention of the sanctioned plan, and such constructions have continued without any intervention. There cannot be two opinions that the regulations and bye- laws in respect of buildings, are meant to serve the public interest. But at the same time it cannot be held that in all circumstances, the authorities entrusted with the demolition of unauthorised constructions, have exclusive power, to the absolute exclusion of the power of the <ORG>. In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the <ORG> is established, a suit shall be maintainable. According to us, (1)The <ORG> should not ordinarily entertain a suit in connection with the proceedings initiated for demolition, by the Commissioner, in terms of section 343 (1) of the <ORG> Act . The <ORG> should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before <ORG> and then before the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

(2)The Court should entertain a suit questioning the validity of an order passed under section 343 of the Act. only if the Court is of Prima facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because of any "jurisdictional error" in exercise of the power by the commissioner or that the order is outside the Act.

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION It need not be said that primary object of filing a suit challenging the validity of the order of demolition is to restrain such demolition with the intervention of the <ORG>. In such a suit the plaintiff is more interested in getting an order of interim injunction. It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course., Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the <ORG> and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the <ORG> that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injunction is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The <ORG> grants such relief according to the legal principles--ex debite justitiae. Before any such order is passed the <ORG> must be satisfied that a strong primafacie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. Under the changed circumstance with so many cases pending in <ORG>s, once an interim order of injunction is passed, in many cases, such interim orders continue for months; if not for years. At final hearing while vacating such interim orders of injunction in many cases, it has been discovered that while protecting the plaintiffs from suffering the alleged injury, more serious injury has been caused to the defendants due to continuance of interim orders of injunction without final hearing. It is a matter of common knowledge that on many occasions even public interest also suffers in view of such interim orders of injunction, because persons in whose favour such orders are passed are interested in perpetuating the contraventions made by them by delaying the final disposal of such applications. The court should be always willing to extent its hand to protect a citizen who is being wronged or is being deprived of a property without any authority in law or without following the procedure which are fundamental and vital in nature. But at the same time the judicial proceedings cannot-be. used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the <ORG>.

Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the <ORG> to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The <ORG>s have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in ail cases the <ORG> shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that "where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the <ORG> shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay......

It has come to our notice that in spite of the aforesaid statutory requirement, the <ORG> have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that <ORG> has prejudged the issues involved in the suit. According to us, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders. It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that now in view of the proviso to Rule 3 aforesaid, there is no scope for any argument. When the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the <ORG> cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the Proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said "the <ORG> shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party". The proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where <ORG> proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay. The condition so introduced is that the <ORG> "shall record the reasons" why an ex parte order of injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this background, the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex parte injunction, cannot be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise either under a statute or under the common law, must be informed why instead of following the requirement of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The party who invokes the jurisdiction of the <ORG> for grant of an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the <ORG> about the gravity of the situation and <ORG> has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parts order. We are quite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes which contain similar provisions requiring the <ORG> or the authority concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are required to be complied with but non-compliance there of will not vitiate the order so passed. But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. The <ORG> has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders have far reaching effect, as such a conditions has been imposed that <ORG> must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance of the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by the <ORG> shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purpose. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This principle was approved and accepted in well-known cases of <NAME> v. <NAME>. (1875) 1 Ch. D. 426, <CITATION> , AIR 1936 PC 253. This <ORG> has also expressed the same view in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of <CITATION> , AIR 1975 SC 915. As such whenever a <ORG> considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side. It must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. But any such ex parte order should be in force upto a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned. In the Supreme <ORG> Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English <ORG> saying:- "Exparte injunctions are for cases of real urgency where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion....

An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, usually the next motion day. . . ."

Accordingly we direct that the application for interim injunction should be considered and disposed of in the following manner:-

(i)The Court should first direct the plaintiff to serve a copy of the application with a copy of the plaint along with relevant documents on the counsel for the <ORG> or any competent authority of the <ORG> and the order should be passed only after hearing the parties.

(ii)If the circumstances of a case so warrant and where the <ORG> is of the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, the <ORG> should record reasons for its opinion as required by proviso to Rule 3 of order 39 of the Code, before passing an order for injunction. The <ORG> must direct that such order shall operate only for a period of two weeks, during which notice along with copy of the application, plaint and relevant documents should be served on the competent authority or the counsel for the <ORG>. Affidavit of service of notice should be filed as provided by proviso to Rule 3 of order 39 aforesaid If the <ORG> has entered appearance, any such exparte order of injunction should be extended only after hearing the counsel for the <ORG>.

(iii)While passing an ex parte order of injunction the Court shall direct the plaintiff to give an undertaking that he will not make any further construction upon the premises till the application for injunction is finally heard and disposed of.

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs.

VPR. Appeals allowed.


JUDGMENT <NAME> and <NAME>, <NAME>.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpore, dated the 2nd of June 1898.

2. The order of the Subordinate Judge was passed on an application for execution of a decree. The decree in question was dated the 26th February 1880; and it was a consent decree passed in a suit brought upon a mortgage. The decree directs that the decretal money be recovered by sale, in the first instance, of the mortgaged properties which have not been exempted, and afterwards from the persons and other properties of the defendants.

3. The judgment-debtors in this case have contended that the decree is barred by limitation.

4. The Subordinate Judge has overruled this plea, and has ordered that execution should proceed.

5. Before us two pleas have been urged, namely, first, that the present application is barred under the three years' rule laid down in Article 179 of the Limitation Act ; and, secondly, that it is barred by the 12 years' rule in Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The present application was made on the 5th of November 1897, and the previous application on the 26th of February 1894. The Subordinate Judge has, however, held that the present application is saved by the applications made on the 5th, 7th and 27th of November 1894, which, in his opinion, were applications made to take steps in aid of execution.

7. The pleader for the appellant contends, in the first place, that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in regarding these applications as applications to take steps in aid of execution. We think he is wrong with regard to the applications of the 5th and 7th of November 1894, because these applications were applications for time, which did not further the execution of the decree, but rather retarded it. The application of the 27th of November, however, was an application for review of an order passed upon the 7th, striking off the execution case, and it prays that it be restored to the file. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it is undoubtedly an application to take a step in aid of execution; and therefore the present application seems to us to be saved by the application of the 27th of November.

8. As to the plea urged by the pleader for the appellant in respect of Section 230 of the Code, we would say that although this, the present application, is no doubt beyond the period of 12 years from the date of original decree, yet that decree appears to us not to be a decree for payment of money or for delivery of property. Therefore execution of this decree is not barred by the rule in Section 230 . In support of this view we may cite the cases of <NAME> v. <NAME> (1894) I.L.R., 16 All, 418, and <CITATION> (1897) I.L.R., 25 Cal., 580. There is no doubt a ruling of <ORG> to the contrary effect; see the case of <CITATION> (1896) I.L.R., 20 Mad., 107. But we are, of course, bound to follow the ruling of this Court.

9. The learned pleader for the appellant has called our attention to the case of <NAME> v. <NAME> (1870) 14 W.R., 209: 12 B.L.R., 513, note, which has been followed in a later case of <NAME> v. <NAME> (1875) 24 W.R., 305. We, however, think that these rulings do not apply to the present case. It would seem that in the case <NAME> v. <NAME> (1870) 14 W.R., 209: 12 B.L.R., 513, note, the plaintiff waived his right as mortgagee, sued for the money due on the bond, and got a decree for the money. The present applicant did nothing of the kind. He got on the 26th February 1880 a mortgage decree, and nothing else but a mortgage decree, and he did not get a decree for payment of the balance due on the amount, after realizing what he could from the property until the 5th July 1888.

10. The pleader for the appellant contends that there was no decree passed then. That may be so; but there appears to have been an order to the effect that the judgment-debtors were bound to pay the balance of the decree, Rs. 60,000. That order seems to have the effect of a decree. But even if that be not so, then it is clear that until that order was passed, the present decree, which it is now sought to execute, was nothing but a mortgage decree. It was not converted into a money decree until that date.

11. For all these reasons we think that the decree of which execution is sought is not barred by time; and we dismiss this appeal with costs.


JUDGMENT Harries, C.J.

1. This is a petition praying that an order made by <ORG> under the Payment of Wages Act be set aside or varied. The petition is made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners Messrs. Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd., were the employers of the opposite party <NAME>. It seems that by the terms of <NAME>'s employment he was entitled to a month's leave on full pay every year. The employers wishing to end <NAME>'s services gave him a month's wages and terminated his employment summarily. The employee made a claim in <ORG> under the Payment of Wages Act for a month's pay in lieu of the period of leave which he was unable to make use of. The Court held that he was entitled to the payment of a month's wages in lien of this period of leave and that is the only question in issue in this petition.

3. Mr. <NAME> who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the decision of the <ORG> was clearly erroneous. On behalf of the apposite party, it was contended that this <ORG> had no authority at all to interfere in the matter as the decision or order in this case was not that of a tribunal as that term is used in Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. I do not think it is necessary to consider the question as to whether <ORG> under the Payment of Wages Act is or is not a tribunal because it appears to me quite clear that this is a case in which we would never interfere even if we had jurisdiction.

5. Mr. <NAME>'s argument on the merits was that his clients were entitled to give the opposite party a month's notice and the latter would be under an obligation to work during that month for his wages. The employers did not insist on that, but paid him a month's wages and told him to go immediately. In other words, they dismissed him summarily and they paid him a month's wages which would be the damages that the workman would be entitled to on being dismissed summarily without good cause. There is nothing to show that the employers were entitled to dismiss the workman summarily, and the payment of the months' wages in lieu of notice cannot be regarded, as Mr. <NAME> regards it, as giving the man leave on a month's pay. If it could be regarded as giving the man a month's leave on full pay, then of course quite clearly the workman would not be entitled to anything more. The view contended for by Mr. <NAME> does find support from a single Judge decision of <ORG> in <NAME> v. <NAME> & Co. A. I. R. (20) 1933 Bang. 85 : (146 I. C. 946). But I do not think it is necessary to discuss this question any further. Even assuming that the payment of the month's wages to the workman without calling upon him to work amounted to giving him wages for the period of leave that he was entitled to, all that Mr. <NAME> can contend is that the <ORG> made a mistake in law. There is no question that under Section 15(2) , Payment of Wages Act , the <ORG> had full authority to entertain this claim made by the workman for delayed wages and the most that can be said is that in deciding the claim the <ORG> erred in law.

6. Though this Court has a light to interfere with decisions of <ORG> and tribunals under its power of superintendence, it appears to me that that right must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in <CITATION> . In that case a Bench over which Sir <NAME> presided held that Section 107 , Government of India Act (which roughly corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution), does not vest <ORG> with limitless power which may be exercised at the Court's discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence it confers is a power of a known and well-recognised character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, <ORG>'s power of superintendence is a power to keep subordinate <ORG> within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner.

7. The power of superintendence as pointed out by <NAME> in his judgment in this case is not a power given to this <ORG> to correct errors, otherwise, it would be tantamount to a right to entertain appeals on law and fact. The right should be exercised only in cases where the <ORG> have clearly done something which they were not entitled to do. The power must be used to keep the <ORG> below within the bounds prescribed by law for such <ORG>. Here, as I have said, the most that can be said if anything can be said, is that the <ORG> erred in law in treating a month's wages in lieu of leave as due. Further, it appears to me that there is no injustice in this case. The employers, for reasons best know to themselves, desired to get rid of this employee immediately. They made it impossible for him to take his month's leave and the order of the <ORG> below even if it was not legally justified, could never be described as unjust or harsh.

8. In the circumstances I can see no ground for interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution and that being so the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs -- the hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs.

<NAME>, J.

9. I agree.

Banerjee, J.

10. I agree.