Interim relief in public interest litigation must balance fairness, preserve rights, and avoid irreversible prejudice to ongoing transactions.

Interim relief in a public interest litigation must rest on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and should not practically grant final relief or cause irreversible prejudice. The Court recognised the power to preserve the subject matter and require documents, but held such protection must be fair and proportionate where parties have already altered their position under the existing regulatory regime. The interim orders were modified: appellants were allowed to complete transactions at an advanced stage, subject to adjustment against vacant land if the writ petition succeeded, while future permissions, constructions and third-party rights remained subject to law and further orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim orders passed in the public interest litigation, restraining further development activity under the amended development control regime and directing production of documents, warranted interference; and whether the appellants should be permitted to complete transactions already at an advanced stage pending final adjudication of the writ petition.

Analysis: Interim relief in a public interest litigation must be tested on settled principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and, where ex parte or ad interim relief is sought, the stricter safeguards governing such orders. The Court also emphasised that interlocutory orders should not be passed in a manner that effectively grants the final relief, or that inflicts irreversible prejudice on parties who have altered their position or entered into transactions on the basis of the existing regulatory regime. At the same time, the High Court's power to preserve the subject matter of the petition and call for relevant material was recognised, but such directions had to be tempered by fairness and practical hardship.

Conclusion: The interim orders were modified. The appellants were permitted to complete transactions that had reached an advanced stage, subject to adjustment against vacant land if the writ petition ultimately succeeded, and future permissions, constructions and third-party rights were confined to compliance with law and subject to further orders of the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by balancing the competing interests, with limited protection granted to the appellants while preserving the writ petition and the High Court's control over further development and third-party rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief, especially in a public interest litigation, may be granted only on a careful assessment of prima facie strength, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, and must not create irreversible consequences when a lesser, conditional protection will adequately preserve the rights of all sides.

---