Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government Of Bihar Enterprise, Patna Territory (Lpg) v. M/S Yashoda Bharat Gas, Ekma Saran (Bihar)

challenged the order dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Appellants 2 Patna High Court LPA No.385 of 2013 (5) dt.14-05-2013 cancelling the agreement and grant of LPG dealership dated

4.8.2010 grounds for misrepresentation/false representation in the application form dated 20.11.2007 leading to grant of dealership. On 30.8.2012, the operation of the order dated

31.7.2012 was stayed. The Appellants preferred L.P.A. No. 1678 of 2012 against the order for stay. On 23.1.2013, the Division Bench opined that as it was an ad interim order, the Appellants had adequate remedy to approach the learned Single Judge for vacating the ad interim order. The appellants moved the learned Single Judge for vacating the interim order dated 30.8.2012 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 7.2.2013. interim order the writ petition itself has virtually been allowed granting the final relief that may or may not have been granted at the final hearing. Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 relied on (2004) 4 SCC 697 (Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra) to submit that withholding of interim order would tantamount to the dismissal of the main petition itself. We have gone through Paragraph-12 of the judgment on which strong reliance is placed and consider it appropriate to quote the same as under:- “12. Situations granting of an interim emerge where relief would 3 Patna High Court LPA No.385 of 2013 (5) dt.14-05-2013 tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case — of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.” resulting injustice It is thus seen that interim relief tantamounting to final relief could be granted if by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. We are of the considered opinion that such is not the case presently. Even if a new dealer is appointed let alone, the dealership of the respondents being attached to another, in the event of success the dealership of the respondents could 4 Patna High Court LPA No.385 of 2013 (5) dt.14-05-2013 always have been restored by the Court. Furthermore, an interim order of such a nature falls clearly in the category of “rare and exceptional cases”. The interim order had to be accompanied by compelling reasons recording the satisfaction of the Court why interim relief of a final nature was necessary. In (2002) 9 SCC 514 (State of U.P. Vs. Modern Transport Co. Ludhiana & Anr.), considering the grant of an interim relief tantamounting to final relief, it was observed that strong and cogent reasons in support of the interim order virtually allowing the writ petition is mandatory. We do not find any reasons discussed in the order dated 30.8.2012 staying the cancellation of the dealership. In (2005) 9 SCC 733 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi), it has been observed as follows at Paragraph-8 with regard to an interim relief tantamounting to final relief which could have been or not have been granted at the final disposal:- “8. To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the government order dated 26-10-1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable 5 Patna High Court LPA No.385 of 2013 (5) dt.14-05-2013 government order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case having been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (SCC at p. 265), State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (SCC at p. 224), State of U.P. v. Visheshwar, Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa, Shiv Shankar v. Board of Directors, U.P. SRTC and Commr./Secy. to Govt. Health and Medical Education Deptt. Civil Sectt. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli.] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie case was made out though as noted above, that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons…….” Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 next relied upon (2009) 10 SCC 388 (Zenit Mataplast Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). The ratio therein is the same as Deoraj (supra). Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on (2009) 5 SCC 452 (All India and Dravida Munnetra Kazliagam Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.). The case is completely distinguishable on its own facts dealing with the issues of “Bandh” to grant interim relief due to paucity of time. Such is not the case 6 Patna High Court LPA No.385 of 2013 (5) dt.14-05-2013 presently. The principle of law on the aspect of interim relief is too well settled to need further elucidation. We shall make only one more reference to 1995 (supplement) 3 SCC 590 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Visheshwar). In the present case the dealership has been cancelled, in the former the services had been terminated against which interim relief was granted. In conclusion, we set aside the interim order dated 30.8.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 15153 of 2012 on the ground that it contains no reasoning for the rare and exceptional circumstances under which the final relief that may or may not have been given at the final hearing has been granted by way of an interim order virtually allowing the writ petition leaving nothing for a final decision. The Appeal is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) P. Kumar/-