An additional affidavit has been filed, upon which no reliance is being placed by Dr. A.M Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner for the purpose of hearing in the matter of grant of injunction.
Indisputably, the respondent has filed a petition before us marked as Petition No. 248(C) of 2010. In that petition a prayer for Interim injunction was made. Today we have declined to pass an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner therein i.e, the respondent herein.
Having regard to the doctrine of ‘amity’ and ‘comity’ we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interim prayer made by the petitioner must succeed as also for the reason that we have disposed of a similar prayer made by the petitioner herein in petition No. 220(C) of 2010 by an order dated 27 July, 2010.
In Prabhjot Singh Mand & Others v. Bhagwant Singh & Others — 2009 (10) SCALE 316, it has been held as under:—
“29. — This Court in M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan [(2006) 8 SCC 367] opined: While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and not only a mere triable issue.”
30. — The Tribunal refused to pass an interim order but observed that any action taken would be subject to ultimate result of he original application. Thus, in a situation of this nature, the High court should have considered the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 had any prima facie case or is there any balance of convenience in his favour. It is not a case where the dispute is between the private parties. Appointment to the cadre of IAS is a matter of public interest. An interim order involving public interest in public law cases must receive different considerations.
31. — The effect of the interim order vis-à-vis the clarificatory order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ application resulted in a piquant situation in the sense that whereas the appellants were entitled to be promoted to IAS, the Union of India in their counter affidavit raise the questions of difficulties contending that unless the posts fall vacant, no appointment therein could be made. It may be true that when an employee is reverted to a lower post, he would suffer civil consequences but then it was necessary not only in public interest, but also to give effect to the doctrine of comity and/or amity. The appellants were entitled to be promoted as of right subject to the result of writ petition. They could not be denied promotion by another interim order passed in favour of the first respondent directing that they could not be reverted as a result whereof the vacancy would not occur.
(See Transmission Corpn. Of AP Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. [(2006) I SCC 540])
32. — This Court in India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd (2007) 5 SCC 510] noticed”
“17. This aspect of the matter has been considered in A Treatise on the Law Governing injunctions by Spelling and Lewis wherein it is stated:
“Section 8. Conflict and loss of jurisdiction — Where a court having general jurisdiction and having acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter has issued an injunction, a court of concurrent jurisdiction will usually refuse to interfere by issuance of a second injunction. There is no established rule of exclusion which would deprive a court of jurisdiction to issue an injunction because of the issuance of an injunction between the same parties appertaining to the same subject-matter, but there is what may properly be termed a judicial comity on the subject. And even where it is a case of one court having refused to grant an injunction while such refusal does not exclude another coordinate court or Judge from jurisdiction, yet the granting of the injunction by a second judge may lead to complications and retaliatory action……”
19. A court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another court.”
(See also Morgan Securities & Credit pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 683)
In view of the termination of the Deal memo dated 13 July, 2010, we direct that the respondent be restrained from representing the petitioner except for the transition period till 13 August, 2010.
Put up the matter on 19.8.2010 for further directions.
…………………J
(S.B Sinha)
Chairperson
…………………
(G.D Gaiha)
Member
………………
(P.K Rastogi)
Member