judgement:
minal Appeal Nos.
402 to 419 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.1992 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.
Petitions Nos. 1574 to 1584 of 1991 and 1588 to 1594 of 1991.
M.S. Nesargi, R.C. Mishra and Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Aggarwal (For Aggarwal & Mishra & Co.,) for the Appellant.
V.Gauri Shankar, Anil Srivastava and Mrs. Anil Katiyar (NP) for the Respondent.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by K. RAMASWAMY.J. Special Leave granted.
Since common question of law arises in these 18 appeals for decision, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
The appellant is one of the Directors of M/s Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd. Yadavagiri, Mysore, a Private Ltd. Company estab lished under the Companies Act.
It was also registered under the .
Its object is to manufacture Motor Cycles and its accessories.
It has its Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Directors including the appellant to manage the establishment.
The respondent laid 18 complaints against six accused including the appellant(A 6) and the Company,employer,for their failure to deposit the contribution for the periods of October to December, 1990 to the Provident Fund Account No. NK 2260 under the Employees 'Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short 'the Act ', Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952,Employees ' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees ' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976, for short 'the Schemes ' punishable under section 14A of the Act read with para 76 of 1952 scheme.
On the Magistrate 's taking cognizance thereof, the appellant laid Crl.
in the High Court to quash the complaints as they do not contain the relevant averments constituting the offences against the appellant.
It is his case that he is a mere Director of the 514 Company.
He was neither Incharge of the Company, nor is responsible to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme,.
In support thereof he placed reliance on the definition 'employer ' and the liability has been fastened on the Managing Director or the Manager or occupier of the establishment to abide by the Act and the Schemes.
The High Court by its order dated March 3,1992, dismissed the applications.
Thus these appeals.
Sri Nesargi, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant contended that a reading of the definition 'employer ' in s.2(e) read with sections 30, 14 (1 A) and paras 30 and 38 of the Schemes demonstrates that the employer in relation to an establishment means the owner or occupier of the factory which includes the Agent or the Manager of the Factory under the .
One Sri N.K. Khudamurad was recorded as occupier and one Sri D.K. Darashawas recorded as the Manager.
They are Incharge of and were responsible to comply with the Act and the Schemes.
No specific averments were made in the complaint making the appellant responsible for the management of the factory or the liability to comply with the Act and the Schemes.
The complaint, therefore, laid against him is illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is vitiated by manifest error of law.
In support thereof he placed reliance on the decisions of this court in Municipal.
Corpn.
of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.
; and Employees 'State Insurance Corpn.v.
Gurdial Singh & Ors.
[1991] Supp.
1 SCC 204.
The Act and the Schemes are self contained code for deduction from the salary of the employees and the responsibility to contribute in equi proportion the employer 's share and deposit thereof in the account within the specific time under Act and the Schemes into the account.
It is a welfare legislation to provide benefits to the employees as per the schemes.
They need mandatory compliance and violation thereof visits with penal action.
Section 2(e) of the Act defines 1 employer ' which means in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the Agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a Manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub section
(1) of s.7 of the , the person so named. . .
The definition is an inclusive definition bringing within its ambit the owner or occupier as well:" its Manager.
Section 2(k) defines 'occupier ' which means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, and, where the said affairs are entrusted to a Managing Agent such Agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory.
Therefore, by its extended definition its sweep is enlarged bringing within its scope the person who is incharge or responsible for in management or ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment.
515 In the event of entrustment to a Managing Agent, such Managing Agent shall also be deemed 'to be the occupier of the factory '.
Section 6 fastens the obligation on the employer in this behalf.
It postulates that the contribution shall be made by the employer to the Fund and shall be 8 1/3% of the basic wages, dearness allowances and retaining allowances, if any, for the payment being payable to each of the employees, whether employed by him directly or through a Contractor.
The employee 's contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him, etc.
in its application to any establishment or class of establishments.
Other provisions are not relevant, hence they are omitted.
Under para 30 of the Employees ' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and the other Schemes, the employer shall deposit the contribution to the Fund.
Under para 36A of the Scheme the employer is enjoined to furnish particulars of the ownership of the factory which provides thus: "36 A Employer to furnish particulars of ownership: Every employer in relation to a factory or other establishment to which the Act applies on the date of coming into force of the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1961, or is applied after that date, shall furnish in duplicate to the Regional Commissioner in Form No. 5A annexed hereto particulars of all the branches and departments, owners, occupiers, directors, partners, manager or any other person or persons who have the ultimate control over the affairs of such factory or establishment and also sent intimation of any change in such particulars, within fifteen days of such change, to the Regional Commissioner by registered post and in such other manner as may be specified by the Regional Commissioner.
Provided that in the case of any employer of a factory or other establishment to which the Act and the Family Pension Scheme, 197 1, shall apply the aforesaid Form may be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Employees ' Family Pension Scheme, 197 1, for the purpose specified above.
" The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contributions payable by himself (in the Scheme referred to as employer 's contribution) and also on behalf of the members employed by him directly or through a Contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in the Scheme referred to as member 's contribution).
Para 38 provides that the employer shall send to the Commissioner within 15 days of the close of every month, pay the same to the Fund by separate Bank Drafts or cheques and the administrative charges.
Within 25 days of close 516 of the month, the employer shall submit a monthly consolidated statement as per form 5 with particulars mentioned therein.
Form 5 A envisages to give particulars in Columns 1 to 7 thereof, i.e. particulars of owner, etc.
The appellant 's establishment stated the name of the establishment as Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd., Code No. of the establishment, its address, nature of business, period of its commencement and manufacturing status, have been given.
In Column 8 the establishment is to furnish the names of the owner company, Directors.
It was mentioned therein as Mr. N.K. Irani as Managing Director; the appellant as one of the Directors and others.
In column 10 the names of occupier and Manager as registered under the were given.
In Column 11 which specifies particulars thus: 'particulars of the persons mentioned above, who are Incharge of, and responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment '.
Therein it was stated that "as per the details mentioned in item 8".
As stated earlier in column 8 the names of the Managing Director, the Joint Managing Director and two Directors including the appellant have been mentioned.
Section 14A which is penal states thus: "14A. Offences by Companies: (1)If the person committing an Offence under this Act, the Scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme in a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was Incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offences and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section
(1), where an offence under this Act, the scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of any 517 director or manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation:For the purposes of this Section (a) "Company" means any body corporate and includes a firm and other association of individuals; and (b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
" Para 76 also fastens criminal offence for non compliance of the provisions of the schemes on the persons incharge of and responsible for the management or control of the establishment.
It could thus be seen that every person, who at the time of the offence was committed, was Incharge of and was responsible to the establishment for conduct of its business as well as the company shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
It is seen that Form 5 A read with para 36A give an option to the employer to furnish particulars of ownership and the branches of the department, owners, occupiers, directors, partners, manager or other person or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of such factory or establishment incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and compliance of the statutory obligation fastened under the Act and the relevant schemes.
Particulars in column 8 as regards owners and column 10 relates to Manager or occupier and their names, addresses etc.
and column 11 refers to the persons Incharge of, and are responsible to the management of the establishment or factory are specified.
In form 5 A, as seen earlier in columns 8 and 1 1, it was specifically stated that the Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Directors including the appellant as not only owners of the factory, but are Incharge of and responsible for the management of the factory and the establishment.
In paragraph 3 of the complaint, It was specifically stated, "that accused 2 to 6 (appellant) are the persons Incharge of the said establishment and are responsible for conduct of its business.
They are thus required to comply with all the provisions of the Act and the Schemes in respect of the said establishment".
It is made mandatory to the employer to abide by the same and non compliance thereof is liable for prosecution under section 14A of the Act.
Section 14(1 A) relied on by Sri Nesargi relates to only liability for punishment for contravention or making default to comply with section 6 or section 17 (3 A) in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges and para 38 of the Scheme in so far as it relates to payment of administrative charges.
That has no application as regards the offence covered under section 14A by the companies are concerned.
Accordingly, we hold that the 518 appellant having been declared himself as one of the person Incharge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the establishment or the factory, the complaint and non compliance thereof having been enumerated in subsequent paras of the complaint, it was validly made against the appellant along with other accused for the alleged contravention.
Necessary allegations bringing out the ingredient of offence have been made out in the complaint.
Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly been taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the appellant.
Employees ' State Insurance Corporation vs Gurdial Singh & Ors.
[1991] Supp. 1 SCC 204 is the case relating to an admission made by the prosecution that the Directors were not Incharge nor are responsible for compliance of the provisions of the , "Admittedly the company had a factory and it is not in dispute that the occupier of the factory had been duly named.
It is also not in dispute that it has a Manager too".
In view of this admission the Directors were held not responsible for non compliance with the provisions of the .
The ratio therein, therefore, does not assist the appellant.
Equally in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. ; for an offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act specific provision of Food Adulteration Rules provide to nominate occupier or Manager responsible for the production or manufacture of articles of food, etc.
by the company and were nominated.
Under those circum stances, this court upheld the quashing of the proceedings against the Directors as the complaint did not contain necessary allegations constituting the offence against the Directors.
The appeals are thus dismissed.
R.M. SAHAI, J. Can a director of a private company, who is neither an occupier nor a manager be prosecuted under Section 14(A) of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in brief 'the Act ') for violation of the Provident Fund Scheme.
That depends, obviously, on the scheme of the Act the liability it fastens on the director of the Company and applicability of the penal provisions to the statutory violation or breach of the scheme framed under it.
But before doing so it may not be out of place to mention that the Act is a welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees engaged in the factories and establishments.
The entire Act is directed towards achieving this objective by enacting provisions requiring the employer to contribute towards Provident Fund, Family Pension and Insurance and keep the Commissioner informed of it by filing regular returns and submitting details in forms prescribed for that purpose.
Paragraph 36A of the 519 Provident Fund Scheme framed by Central Government under Section 5 of the Act requires the employer in relation to a factory or other establishment to furnish Form 5A mentioning details of its branches and departments, owners, occupiers, directors, partners, managers or any other person or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment.
The purpose of giving details of the owners, occupiers and directors etc.
is not ail empty formality but a deliberate intent to widen the net of responsibility on any and every one for any act or omission.
It is necessary as well as in absence of such responsibility the entire benevolent scheme may stand frustrated.
The anxiety of the Legislature to ensure that the employees are not put to any hardship in respect of Provident Fund is manifest from Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
The former grants immunity to provident fund from being attached for any debt outstanding against the employee.
And the latter provides for priority of provident fund contribution over other debts if the employer is adjudged insolvent or the company is winded up.
Such being the nature of provident fund any violation or breach in this regard as to be construed strictly and against the employer.
Reverting to the statutory provision Sections 14 and 14A provide for penalities.
The one applies to whosoever is guilty of avoiding payment of Provident fund and to employer if he commits breach of provisions mentioned in its various clauses where as Section 14A fastens liability on certain persons if the person committing the offence is a company.
The scope of the two sections is same.
Latter is wider in its sweep and reach.
The former applies to anyone who is an employer or owner or is himself responsible for making payment whereas latter fastens the liability on all those who are responsible or are in charge of the company for the offence committed by it.
Section 14A reads as under: "14 A. Offences by companies (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act, the Scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme is a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
520 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), where an offence under this Act, the Scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director or manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation For the purposes of this section, (i) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm and other association of individuals; and (ii) "director", in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
" Sub sections (1) and (2) extend the liability for any offence by any person including a partner by virtue of explanation if he was incharge or was responsible to the company at the time of committing the offence.
The expression, 'was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business ' are very wide in their import.
It could not, therefore, be confined to employer only.
The employer is defined by Section 2(e) to mean, "2 (e). 'employer ' means (i)in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub section (1) of Section 7 of the , the person so named; and (ii)in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent;" Both clauses (i) and (ii) again are wide in their sweep.
In clause (i) are 521 included not only owner or occupier but even the agent or manager.
When it comes to establishments other than factory it is not confined to owner or occupier but to all those who have control or are responsible for the affairs of the company.
It includes even director.
Therefore, every such person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of company becomes employer.
To say therefore that since paragraph 36 A requires an employer to do certain acts the responsibility for any violation of the provision should be confined to such employer or owner would be ignoring the purpose and objective of the Act and the extended meaning of employer in relation to establishments other than the factory.
The declaration therefore in Form 5A including appellant as one of the persons in charge and responsible for affairs of the company was in accordance with law therefore his prosecution for violation of the scheme does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law.
ORDER For reasons given by us in our concurring but separate orders the appeals fail and are dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.

summary:
The appellant was one of the Directors of a Company registered under the Companies Act This company was also registered under the Factories Act and its object was to manufacture Motorcycles and its accessories.
It had a Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Directors including the appellant for managing the establishment.
The respondent an Enforcement Officer, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 's Office laid 18 complaints against six accused including the appellant (A 6) and the Company employer, for the failure to deposit the contribution for the period October to December 1990 to the Provident Fund Account under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976, offences punishable under Section 14A of the 1952 Act read with para 76 of the 1952 Scheme.
On the Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in the High Court for quashing the complaint as they did not contain the relevant averments constituting offences against the appellant.
It was contended that the appellant was a mere Director of the Company, that he was neither incharge of the company nor was 509 responsible to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Schemes thereunder.
Reliance was placed on the definition of 'employer ' in Section 2 (e) of the Act and the liability that had been fastened on the Managing Director or the Manager or occupier of the establishment to abide by the Act and the Schemes.
The High Court dismissed the applications.
The appellant appealed to this Court and contended that the reading the definition of 'employer ' in section 2(e) of the Act with Sections 30,14(1a) and para 31 of the Scheme, demonstrate that the employer in relation to the establishment means the owner or occupier of the factory which includes the Agent or the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act, that there was an occupier and Manager recorded for the instant company, and that they were Incharge of and were solely responsible to comply with the Act and the Schemes thereunder and that no specific averments have been made in the complaint making the appellant responsible for the management of the factory or the liability to comply with the Act and the Schemes.
The complaint laid against the appellant was therefore illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was vitiated by manifest error of law.
On the question: whether a Director of a Private Company, who is neither an occupier nor a manager can be prosecuted under Section 14(A) of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for violation of the Provident Fund Scheme.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: (By the Court K. Ramaswamy & R.M. Sahai, JJ.) 1.
The Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 by Section 2(e) defines 'employer '.
It is an inclusive definition and consists of two clauses which are vide in their sweep.
In Clause (i) are included not only owner or occupier but even the agent or manager.
When it comes to establishments other than factory it is not confined to owner or occupier but to all these who have central or are responsible for the affairs of the company.
It includes even director.
Therefore, every such person who has the ultimate control of the affairs of the company becomes employer Section 2(k) defines `occupier ' which means the person who has the ultimate control of the factory, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a Managing Agent, such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory.
Therefore, by its extended definition its sweep is enlarged bringing within its scope the person who is incharge of or responsible for,the management or 1 510 ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment.
In the event of entrustment to a Managing Agent, such Managing Agent shall also be deemed 'to be the occupier of the factory '.
(514 GH,) 2.
In the instant case, the appellant having been declared himself as one of the person Incharge of and was responsible for conduct of the business of the establishment or the factory in Form 5A the complaint and non compliance thereof having been enumerated in para 3 of the complaint, it was validly made against the appellant along with other accused for the alleged Contravention.
Necessary allegations bringing out the ingredient of offence have been made out in the complaint.
Therefore, the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the appellant.
(518 A B) (Per K. Ramaswamy, J.) 1.
The Act and the Schemes are self contained code for deduction from the salary of the employees and the responsibility to contribute in equiproportion of the employer 's share and deposit thereof in the account within the specified time under the Act and the Schemes into the account It is a welfare legislation to provide benefits to the employees as per the schemes.
They need mandatory compliance and violation thereof visits with penal action.
(514 E) 2.
Section 6 fastens the obligation on the employer.
It postulates that the contribution to the fund shall be made by the employer.
(515 A) 3.
Under para 30 of the Employees ' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and the other Schemes, the employer shall deposit the contribution to the Fund.
(515 B) 4.
The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contributions payable by himself(in the Scheme referred to as employer 's contribution) and also on behalf of the members employed by him directly or through a Contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in the Scheme re ferred to as member 's contribution).
(515 G) 5.
Para 38 provides that the employer shall send to the Commissioner within 15 days of the close of every month, pay the same to the Fund by separate Bank Drafts or cheques and the administrative charges within 25 days of close of the month, the employer shall submit a monthly consolidated 511 statement as per form 5 with particulars mentioned therein.
(515 H, 516 A) 6.
Para 76 also fastens criminal offence for non compliance of the provisions of the schemes on the persons incharge of and responsible for the management or control of the establishment.
Every person, who at the time the offence was committed, was Incharge of and was responsible to the establishment for conduct of its business as well as the company shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(517 C) 8.
Form 5 A read with para 36A give an option to the employer to furnish particulars of ownership and the branches of the department, owners, occupiers, directors, partners, manager or other person or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of such factory or establishment incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and compliance of the statutory obligation fastened under the Act and the relevant schemes.
It is made mandatory to the employer to abide by the same and noncompliance thereof is liable for prosecution under Section 14A of the Act (517 D) Municipal Corpn.
of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.
; ; and Employees 'State Insurance Corpn.
vs Gurdial Singh & Ors.
[1991] Supp. 1 SCC 204, referred to.
Employees ' State Insurance Corporation vs Gurdial Singh & Ors.
(1991 Supp. 1 SCC 204, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.
, ; , distinguished.
(Per R.M. Sahai, J.) 1.
The Act is a welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of he employees engaged in the factories and establishments and is directed towards achieving this objective by enacting provisions requiring the employer to contribute towards Provident Fund, Family Pension and Insurance and keep the Commissioner informed of it by riling regular returns and submitting details in forms prescribed for that purpose.
(518 G) 512 2.
Paragraph 36A of the Provident Fund Scheme framed by Central Government under Section 5 of the Act requires the employer in relation to a factory or other establishment to furnish Form 5A mentioning details of its branches and departments, owners, occupiers, directors, partners, managers or any other person or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment.
The purpose of giving details of the owners, occupiers and directors etc, is not an empty formality but a deliberate intent to widen the net of responsibility on any and every one for any act or omission.
It is necessary as well as in absence of such responsibility the entire benevolent scheme may stand frustrated.
(519 A B) 3.
The anxiety of the Legislature to ensure that the employees are not put to any hardship in respect of Provident Fund is manifest from sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
The farmer grants immunity to provident fund from being attached for any debt outstanding against the employee.
And the latter provides for priority of provident fund contribution over other debts if the employer is adjudged insolvent or the company is winded up.
Such being the nature of provident fund any violation or breach in this regard has to be construed strictly and against the employer.
(519 C) 4.
Sections 14 and 14A provides for penalties.
The one applies to whosoever is guilty of avoiding payment of provident fund and to employer if he commits breach of provisions mentioned in its various clauses where as Section 14A fastens liability on certain person if the persons committing the offence is company.
The scope of the two sections is same.
Latter is wider in its sweep and reach.
The former applies to anyone who is an employer or owner or is himself responsible for making payment whereas latter fastens the liability on all those who are responsible or are in charge of the company for the offence committed by it.
(519 D E) 5.
Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 14A extend the liability for any offence by any person including a partner by virtue of explanation if he was incharge or was responsible to the company at the time of committing the offence.
The expression, 'was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business ' are very wide in their import.
It could not, therefore, be confined to employer only.
(520 D) 6.
To say therefore that since paragraph 36A requires an employer to do certain acts the responsibility for any violation of the provision should be confined to such employer or owner would be ignoring the purpose and 513 objective of the Act and the extended meaning of 'employer ' in relation to establishments other than the factory.
The declaration therefore in Form 5A in the instant case including appellant as one of the persons in charge and responsible for affairs of the company was in accordance with law, therefore, his prosecution for violation of the scheme does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law.
(521 B C)


judgement:
Appeal Nos.
2531 33 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 3499 of 1989.
R.M. Bagai, V. Shekhar, Ms. Bina Gupta and Ms. Monika Mohil for the Appellants.
Kapil Sibal, Ranjit Kumar and R.P. Sharma for the Respondents.
J. Special leave granted.
These appeals have been filed against an order passed by the Delhi High Court directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") to issue appropriate notices to the owners/occupiers/builders of the building where illegal constructions have been made.
A liberty has been given to 528 the owners/occupiers/builders to file fresh buildings plans with the Corporation in conformity with the existing bye laws.
The building plans as filed are to be examined in accordance with the law.
The Corporation 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 Court 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 Corporation 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 the Appellate Tribunal under the Municipal Act.
The Appellate Tribunal 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 Court has directed the Corporation 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 the High Court 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 Corporation, is unauthorised and illegal has been ousted.
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation Act") has made provisions for the constitution of the Corporation 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 Corporation area.
Section 331 defines the expression "to erect a building".
Section 332 says that" no person shall erect or commence to erect 529 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 the Appellate Tribunal 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, the Appellate Tribunal 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 the Appellate Tribunal unless security, sufficient in the opinion of the said Tribunal 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 the Appellate Tribunal on appeal under this section, and subject to the orders of the Administrator and the Appellate Tribunal 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 530 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 the Appellate Tribunal.
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 Corporation 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 the Appellate Tribunal and Administrator shall be deemed to be final and conclusive.
In spite of several pronouncements of this Court during the last four decades, the question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Court 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.
531 Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") says that Courts 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 Corporation once the jurisdiction of the Court to try a suit in which the validity of any order passed under the provisions of the Corporation 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 Court 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 Civil Court 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 Civil Courts 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 Court.
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 Volverhampton New Waterworks Co. vs Hawkesford; , , Willes, J, said: "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be 532 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 the House of Lords in Neville vs London "Express" Newspaper Limited, (1919) Appeal Cases 368.
In Barraclough vs Brown, , 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 Secretary of State vs Mask & Co., 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 the Civil Courts 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, the Civil Courts 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.
" 533 But having enunciated the general principle in respect of ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court 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 section (2) of Section 32." In connection with the imposition of Terminal Tax on salt under the Punjab Municipal Act.
In Firm Seth Radha Kishan vs Administrator, Municipal committee.
Ludhiana; , , 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 Firm of Illuri Subbaya Chetty and Sons vs State of Andhra Pradesh, ; , considered the provisions of Madras General Sales Tax Act and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
It was pointed out that there was an express and unambiguous prohibition and no suit could be entertained by a Civil Court.
In connection with the Bombay Sales Tax Act the same view was reiterated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. vs State of Bombay ; In Ram Swarup and ors.
vs Shikar chand; , , a Constitution Bench examined the bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in connection with the House 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 the Civil Court had been ousted.
This very question was examined in State of Kerala vs MI s N. Ramaswami Iyer and sons; , , in connection with the Travancore Cochin General Sales Tax Act and it was held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court 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 Ram Gopal Redd), vs Additional Custodian Evacuee Property Hyderabad, ; and Custodian of Evacuee Property Punjab & Ors.
vs Jafran Begum, ; , 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 the Civil Court to entertain any suit.
The Constitution Bench in Dhuilabhai vs State of Madya Pradesh, AIR 1969 534 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 The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke. ; = ; , it was pointed out that "the Civil Court 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 the Civil Court in connection with the levy of octroi duty under the C.P. and Barar Municipalities Act, 1922 was examined by this Court in Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. vs Jabalpur Corporation, ; 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 Munshi Ram vs Municipal Committee.
Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 = , 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 Ram Singh vs Gram Panchayat, MehalKalan, ; = ; , that when by a special statute rights have been created and jurisdiction of the Court has been barred then the jurisdiction of the 535 Court to try such suits has been taken away.
In the case of Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava vs Union of India, ; = 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 Civil Court to entertain a suit for ejectment was examined in Sushil Kumar Mehta vs GobindRam Bohra, ; , 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 Court 's power to review those decisions.
The result is that the power of the Court under section 9 of the Code is being denuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of liabilities created or rights conferred.
This Court in the judgments referred to above has upheld the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Court 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 Court 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 Court 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 vs Guatreddi Annamanaidu, ; , this Court after referring to the case of Desika Charyulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 807, observed: 536 "It was pertinently added that this exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be subject to two limitations.
First, the Civil Courts 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 Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. vs Ministry of Housing and Local Government, , 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 Court.
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 Court 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 Court 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 Anisminic Lid.
vs Foreign Compensation Commission, ; , a wide interpretation has been given to the word 'jurisdiction ' by the House of Lords.
It was pointed out that in many cases where although the Tribunal 537 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 the Appellate Tribunai and thereafter to the Administrator.
Subject to any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal 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 Corporation Act over the power of the Courts, 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 Corporation limits, or that the constructions were made prior to coming into force of the relevant provisions of 538 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 Courts, with pleas mentioned above, specially that no notice was issued or served on them, before the Corporation 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 Court.
In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the Corporation is established, a suit shall be maintainable.
According to us, (1)The Court 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 Corporation Act.
The Court should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal 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 Court.
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 Court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused 539 to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.
The purpose of temporary injunction is, thus, to maintain the status quo.
The Court grants such relief according to the legal principles ex debite justitiae.
Before any such order is passed the Court 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 Courts, 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 Court.
Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the Court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The Courts 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 Court 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 Court 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 Courts 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 540 are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that Court 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 Court 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 Court 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 Court 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 Court "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 Court for grant of an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the Court about the gravity of the situation and Court 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 Court 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 Parliament 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 Court 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 Parliament shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be 541 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 Taylor vs Taylor. , Nazir Ahmed vs Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253.
This Court has also expressed the same view in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of Ramachandra Keshav Adke vs Govind Joti Chavare, ; As such whenever a Court 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 Court Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English Courts 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 Corporation or any competent authority of the Corporation and the order should be passed only after hearing the parties.
(ii)If the circumstances of a case so warrant and where the Court is of the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, the Court 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 Court must direct that such order shall operate only for a period of two weeks, during which notice along 542 with copy of the application, plaint and relevant documents should be served on the competent authority or the counsel for the Corporation.
Affidavit of service of notice should be filed as provided by proviso to Rule 3 of order 39 aforesaid If the Corporation has entered appearance, any such exparte order of injunction should be extended only after hearing the counsel for the Corporation.
(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.
Appeals allowed.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary:
In respect of some private dispute between two neighbors a writ application was filed in the High Court.
On the material produced in the case it was treated as a Public Interest Litigation and the High Court 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.
The High Court wanted to ensure that such unauthorised constructions were not perpetuated on the basis of interim orders of injunction passed by the Civil Courts .
The High Court disposed of the petition holding that the owners/ occupiers/builders were to be given liberty to file fresh building plans and that the Municipal Corporation was to examine such building plans in accordance with law and that the Corporation was to seal and to demolish those constructions which were beyond the compoundable limits.
The High Court also directed that no civil suit would be entertained by any Court in Delhi in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Corporation with regard to the sealing and/or demolition of any building or any part thereof.
The High Court directed further that person aggrieved by an order of sealing or demolition had the right to file an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
522 523 Against the High Court 's order the present appeals were filed by special leave.
On the question, "whether the jurisdiction of the Court 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 Court, 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 Court 's power to review those decisions.
The result is that the power of the Court 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 Court 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 Court 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 Court, orders passed under such statutes can be examined on "jurisdictional question".
A suit will be maintainable.
(536 F) Katikara Chiniamani Dora vs Guatreddi Annamanaidu, ; ; Desika Charyutttu vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 807; PYX Granite Co. Ltd. vs Ministry of Housing and Local and Government, and Anisminic Ltd. vs Foreign Compensation Commission; , , relied on.
Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. vs Hawkesford, [1859] 6 ; Neville vs London "Express" Newspaper Limited.
[1919] Appeal Cases 368; Baraclough vs Brown, [1897] Appeal Cases 615; Secretary of State vs Mask & Co., AIR 1940 P.C. 105; Firm Seth Radha Kishan vs Administrator.
Municipal committee, Ludhiana; , ; Finn of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons vs State of Andhra Pradesh, ; ; M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. vs State of Bombay, ; ; Ram Swarup and Ors.
vs Shikar Chand, ; ; State of Kerala vs M/s. N. Ramaswami Iyer and sons; , ; Rain Gopal Reddy vs Additional Custodian Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, [1966]3 SCR 214; Custodian of Evacuee Property, Punjab & Ors.
vs Jafran Begum, [1967]3 SCR 736; Dhulabhai vs Stale of Madhya Pradesh, ; ; The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Kamlaker Shantarm Wadke; , 1 SCC 496; Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. vs Jabalpur Corporation, ; ; Munshi Ram vs Municipal Commitee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250= [1979]3 SCC 83; Rain Singh vs Grain Panchayat, Mehal Kalan; , SCC 364; Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava vs Union of India, ; and Sushil Kumar Mehta vs GobindRam Bohra, ; , referred to.
The Delhi Municipal Corporation 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 Corporation Act over the power of the Courts, 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.
(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 Court.
In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the Corporation is established, a suit shall be maintainable.
(538 C) 1.7.
The Court 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 Corporation Act.
The Court should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and then before the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
(538 D) 1.8.
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.
(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 Court and such discretion is to he exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court 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 Court grants such relief according to the legal principles ex debite justitiae.
Before any such order is passed the Court 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 Court 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 Court.
(539 1)) 526 2.4.
Power to grant injunction is an extra ordinary power vested in the Court to he exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The Courts 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 Courts 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 Court 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 Court 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.
Taylor vs Taylor, (1875)1 Ch. D. 426; Nazir Ahmed vs Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and Ramachandra Keshar Adke vs Gavind Joti Chavare; , , relied on.
Whenever a Court 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 Court Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, referred to.
527 2.8.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 Corporation or any competent authority of the Corporation 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 Court is of the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, the Court 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 Court 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 Corporation.
Affidavit of service of notice should be filed as provided by proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 aforesaid.
If the Corporation has entered appearance, any such ex parte order of injunction should be extended only after hearing the counsel for the Corporation.
(541 H, 542 A) 2.10.While passing an exparte 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.
(512 C)


judgement:
Appeal No. 2198 of 1986.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.12.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A No. 1155 of 1977.
S.M. Ashri for the Appellant.
Ms. Kawaljit Kochar for J.D. Jain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA,J.
This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and 591 order of the Punjab & Harvana High Court dismissing the appeal filed before it by the appellant.
The suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marlas of land at village Qayampur.
The said land was owned by Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh, the respondents, and was sold while they were still minors by their mother Gurkirpal, acting as their guardian, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 30th July, 1964.
Upon attaining majority the respondents sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof having been made without the permission of the court was void.
The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit relied heavily upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and that the sale should.
therefore, be deemed to have been a sale by the legal guardian of the respondents.
It was also contended that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents.
The suit, it was also alleged, was barred by limitation because, the sale being voidable and not void, it had not been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority.
The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion that it had not been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents; that the sale by the respondent 's mother without the permission of the court was void; and that the sale was void and not voidable and the suit was, therefore, in time.
The appeals filed by the appellant before the Additional District Judge.
Ambala and the High Court failed.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed great reliance upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and submitted that the sale deed should, therefore, be taken to have been entered into by the natural guardian of the respondents for legal necessity and their benefit.
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act sets out the powers of the natural guardian of a Hindu minor.
The natural guardian of a Hindu Minor has power, subject to the provisions of section 8, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or his estate.
The natural guardian, however, may not without the previous permission of the court sell any part of the immovable property of the minor.
Any disposal of immovable property which is not necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or is without the previous permission of the court is voidable at the instance of the minor.
In the instant case, there, is, as found by the trial court and affirmed in appeal, no evidence beyond the bare word of the appellant that the sale deed had been made for the benefit of the minor respondents and his evidence had been eroded in cross 592 examination so that there was no "reliable evidence on record to show that the alienation in dispute had been made for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the plaintiffs.
That the sale was effected without the permission of the court is not dispute.
The sale is, therefore, in any event, voidable.
The question is whether, in the circumstances of the case, it may be said that the sale was effected by the father and natural guardian of the respondents because he had attested the sale deed executed by the mother of the respondents.
In this behalf our attention was invited to this Court 's judgment in Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre vs Pathankhan and ors.
; , This was a case in which it was held that the position in Hindu law was that when the father was alive he was the natural guardian and it was only after him that the mother became the natural guardian.
Where the father was alive but had fallen out with the mother of the minor child and was living separately for several years without taking any interest in the affairs of the minor, who was in the keeping and care of the mother, it was held that, in the peculiar circumstances, the father should be treated as if nonexistent and, therefore, the mother could be considered as the natural guardian of the minor 's person as well as property, having power to bind the minor by dealing with her immovable property.
In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the father of the respondents was not taking any interest in their affairs or that they were in keeping and care of the mother to the exclusion of the father.
In fact, his attestation of the sale deed shows that he was very much existent and in the picture.
If he was, then the sale by the mother, notwith standing the fact that the father attested it, cannot be held to be a sale by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of section 8.
The Provisions of section 8 are devised to fully protect the property of a minor, even from the depredations of his parents.
Section 8 empowers only the legal guardian to alienate a minor s immovable property provided it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor or his estate and it further requires that such alienation shall be effected after the permission of the court has been obtained.
It is difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale was voidable, not void, by reason of the fact that the mother of the minor respondents signed the sale deed and the father attested it.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
G.S. Appeal dismissed.

summary:
The mother of the respondent minors, acting as their guardian, sold their land, while they were still minors, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated July 30,1964.
The respondents, upon attaining majority, sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof, having been made without the permission of the court, was void.
The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit contended that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and the. .ale should, therefore, he deemed to have been a sale by the legal guardian of the respondents.
It was also pleaded that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents.
It was also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation because the sale was voidable and not void and the suit had not been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority.
The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion that it had not been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents, that the sale by the respondent 's mother without the permission of the court was void, and the sale was void and not voidable and the suit was, therefore, in time and was decreed.
590 The appeal filed by the appellant before the Additional Distt.
Judge and the High Court failed.
The appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, this court, HELD : 1.
The provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are devised to fully protect the property (.if a minor, even from the depredations of his parents.
Section 8 empowers only the legal guardian to alienate a minor 's immovable property provided it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor or his estate and it further requires that such alienation shall be effected after the permission of the Court has been obtained.
It was difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale, by reason of the fact that the mother of the minor respondents signed the sale deed and the father attested it, was voidable, not void.
(592 G) 3.
The attestation of the sale deed by the father showed that he was very much existent and in the picture.
If he was, then the sale by the mother, notwithstanding the fact that the father attested it, cannot he held to be sale by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of section 8.
(592 E) Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre vs Pathankhan & Ors. ; , distinguished.
(662 A)