Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.:— Judges, whatever their own views must follow the decision of the Superior Courts to which they are judicially subordinate. It is an unwritten rule based on what is known as judicial comity. Under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is made binding on all Courts of India. The Courts should treat a decision of the Supreme Court as an authority not only for what it declares or decides by express enunciation but also for what follows from such declarations by clear implication by way of logical deduction.
2. Unfortunately in all these matters before me the learned trial Judge did not take trouble to read the decision of Tarun Bharat Sangh Alwar v. Union of India (1), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court issued directions in respect of mines in question as under-(Para 21 & 22):
“It is accordingly directed that all mining activities in the mines mentioned in Appendix ‘A’ to the report of justice M.L Jain Committee shall stop forthwith. Similarly the mining activity in the mines mentioned in Appendix ‘B’ to the said report shall stop forthwith in so far as they fall within the protected forest areas………”
“…….. the mining activity in the mines situated outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reserve may continue for a period of four months. Within this period it shall be open to the concerned mine owners to approach the Department of Forest and Environment Government of India for permission to continue their mining operations. They can continue the mining operations in these mines only if the Central Government permits them and subject to the orders of the Central Government in that behalf. If no permission is obtained from the Central Government within the said period of four months, the mining activity in the entire area declared as tiger reserve shall stop and cease on the expiry of four months.”
3. After issuing aforesaid directions their Lordships of the Supreme Court listed the matter for further orders. Yet another order was passed by their Lordships on 29.7.1997 thus—
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
There is no dispute that the areas have been notified on 7.5.1992 u/Ss. 3(1) & 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In view of such notification various activities including mining activities as referred to in the said notification dated 7.5.1992 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, cannot be undertaken without the permission of the Central Government. The land, in respect of which such restriction applies, has been mentioned in the Table. It appears from Item No. (IV) of the Table that in respect of the areas comprising Sariska National Park and Sariska-Sanctuary notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no such activities, as referred to in the said Notification dated 7.5.1992 can be undertaken.
Shri Sachar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has informed this Court on instruction that in respect of the area comprising Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary as notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no mining operation or other activities are being carried and no such operation will be permitted by the State Government of Rajasthan in such area. But in respect of areas outside area comprising Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary the State Government will be permitted to apply for permission from Central Government in appropriate case in terms of the Notification dated May 1992. On behalf of Central Government an affidavit has been affirmed by the Joint Director, Project Tiger, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. It has been indicated in the affidavit that the entire area of 866 sq. km. including the core area namely the Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary is known as Sariska Tiger Reserve. Mr. Sachar the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has submitted that in respect of said core area no mining or other prejudicial activities will be permitted. Even in respect of other area within the said 866 sq. km. any activity likely to be prejudicial to the Sariska Tiger Reserve will be permitted only after obtaining sanction from the Central Government.
It is, therefore, directed that in the said core area, namely, Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary no mining activity and other activities referred to in the Notification dated 7.5.1992 should be permitted. But in respect of other areas which fall within the 866 sq. km. comprising Sariska Tiger Reserve but not covered within the core area known as Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no mining activity or other activities should be permitted by the State Government of Rajasthan without the written permission of the Central Government. In view of the affidavit filed by the Joint Director, Project Tiger, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, it is reasonably expected that in case any permission is sought from the Central Government in area outside the said core area, the Central Government will be alive to the importance and urgency of maintenance of the Sariska Tiger Reserve as indicated in the affidavit of the said Joint Director of Project Tiger in disposing of the prayer for granting permission only in appropriate case on relevant consideration of various factors germane to the consideration of maintenance of Sariska Tiger Reserve in the context of proper preservation of wild life and sustainable development of flora, fauna and ecology. It has already been indicated that the State Government has informed the Court through its learned counsel that in respect of core area comprising Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no mining activities are being carried on.
The writ petition and connected special leave petition stand disposed of. No further order need be passed on the I.As All the I.As stand disposed of.”
4. The petitioners in the capacity of mining lease holders instituted civil suits some where in the month of February 1998 in the trial Court alongwith applications seeking temporary injunction restraining the State of Rajasthan from making interference in their mining activities. The applications were contested by the respondents. Learned trial Court after making a casual reference of the Supreme Court order observed that as Shri Justice M.L Jain Committee failed to give express opinion in respect of Kalwad area there existed a prima facie case in favour of all the petitioners, the balance of convenience is also in their favour and if interim injunction is not issued in their favour they would suffer irreparable loss. All the applications therefore were allowed and the respondents were restrained from maining interference in the mining activities of the petitioners. Interim mandatory directions in respect of extension of lease period and delivery of Ravanna Book were also issued.
5. The respondents preferred civil misc. appeals u/O. 43, R. 1 CPC assailing the orders of the trial Court. Learned appellate Court allowed the appeals and quashed the orders of the trial Court and vacated the interim orders. Against these orders of the appellate Court that the present action for filing the instant revisions has been resorted to by the petitioners.
6. It was canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that mining area of the petitioners does not come in the purview of the Supreme Court's order and the petitioners were wrongly prevented since 9.5.1993 from undertaking mining activities by the respondents. The order dated 29.7.1997 of the Supreme Court was final order and earlier order was merged in it. The question of jurisdiction could not have been gone into by the appellate Court. The civil suits were properly framed and it was not necessary to seek relief of declaration. Interim order was rightly passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court had exceeded jurisdiction in making interference in it. Reliance was placed on Corporation of Bangalore City v. M. Papaiah (2), Muslim Wakf Board v. Municipal Board (3), P. Buchi Reddy v. Ananthula Sudhakar (4) Nazir Ahmed v. Ashfaq Ali (5) & Indian Cable Co. v. Sumitra (6).
7. The contention of the respondents on the other hand was that the petitioners themselves admitted in the plaint that mining activities were put to rest as back as 1993 and no interim injunction could be issued in 1998 ignoring the directions issued by the Apex Court. The lease area of the petitioners comes in the purview of the Supreme Court's order and the mining operations were prohibited in pursuance of the order dated 8.4.1993 in Tarun Bharat Sangh's case (supra). The trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Reliance was placed on Board of Trustees v. Bombay Flour Mills (7) & T.N Goverdhan v. U.O.I (8).
8. On a careful scrutiny of the material on record and documents placed before me for perusal it appears that the petitioners have attempted to develop entire a new case. The arguments were advanced in such a manner as if I was hearing a writ petition of public interest. While hearing revision petition I cannot appreciate those documents that were not placed on the files of the trial Court. The directions issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tarun Bharat Sangh's case are binding on all subordinate Courts of this country. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish as to how they do not come in the purview of the said directions. Before deciding the applications seeking temporary injunction, the learned trial court ought to have closely scrutinised the pleadings of the parties as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also necessary for the trial Court to consider while discussing the prima facie case as to under what circumstances interim relief was ought in 1998 in respect of those mines that were set at halt in 1993. The grant of interim injunction is a serious matter and the Court should always take good care to grant an injunction in cases only where such an injunction is essential. The discretion u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC should be exercised in accordance with reason and on sound judicial principles. While granting such relief it is necessary to ascertain the position which existed on the date of filing of the suit. It is well recognised principle for the grant of equitable relief that the plaintiff must come to the Court with clean hands and he must disclose all facts for and against him in order to claim the discretionary relief of injunction. There is a clear distinction between the principles applicable for issue of temporary injunction granted in a prohibitory form and an interim mandatory injunction. In a case of grant of mandatory injunction the plaintiff should not only show the prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable injury but also that the case falls within the exceptional category of cases wherein the Courts should intervene immediately in granting relief. In my considered opinion no interim prohibitory or mandatory injunction should have been issued in 1998 in respect of those mining operations that were set at halt in pursuance of the Supreme Court's order in 1993. Learned appellate Court under those circumstances rightly quashed the orders of the trial Court. I do not see any, error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders and allowing them to stand would not occasion failure of justice.
9. Resultantly, all the revision petitions stand dismissed with costs. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court to take appropriate action against the erring Presiding Officer who was posted at the relevant time in the trial Court.
Comments