Public utility under Article 226(6) includes housing and planned development schemes, barring interim stay and injunction

Land acquisition for a housing board scheme and planned urban development was construed as a work of public utility under Article 226(6), because public utility was read broadly to include projects serving a public welfare purpose and benefiting a considerable section of the public, even if not the entire community. On that basis, the constitutional bar against interim stay or injunction applied. The Court also found that possession had already been taken, no present possessory right or irreparable injury was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the scheme. Interim protection was therefore refused on equitable grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether land acquisition for a housing board scheme and planned urban development falls within the expression "public utility" in Article 226(6) of the Constitution of India so as to bar grant of interim stay or injunction. (ii) Whether the petitioner was otherwise entitled to interim protection on the grounds of possession, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

Issue (i): Whether land acquisition for a housing board scheme and planned urban development falls within the expression "public utility" in Article 226(6) of the Constitution of India so as to bar grant of interim stay or injunction.

Analysis: The expression "public utility" was construed broadly and in a generic sense. The Court rejected the narrow view that public utility is confined only to services usable by the entire community. It held that utility may still be public even if it is actually enjoyed by only a section of the public, such as persons allotted houses, users of roads, or beneficiaries of planned development schemes. Housing for the homeless and planned colony development were treated as works of public utility because they serve a public welfare objective and provide benefit to a considerable section of the public.

Conclusion: Land acquisition for the housing board project was held to be a work of public utility, and the embargo under Article 226(6) applied against grant of interim stay.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was otherwise entitled to interim protection on the grounds of possession, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

Analysis: The Court found on the material placed that possession had already been taken over by the respondents and that the petitioner had not established a present possessory right warranting interim restraint. It also held that no house had yet been constructed, so the petitioner could not show substantial or irreparable injury from continuation of the project. The balance of convenience was found to lie with the respondents, particularly in view of the public nature of the scheme and the delay already caused.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to interim stay or injunction on equitable grounds.

Final Conclusion: The stay application failed on both the constitutional bar and the equitable considerations, and the interim order was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 226(6), "public utility" includes a housing or planned development scheme that serves a public welfare purpose and is useful to a considerable section of the public, even if it is not enjoyed by the entire community.

---