Appeal allowed: interim release of goods on bank guarantees denied where prima facie case insufficient in public revenue matters

The SC allowed the appeal, holding the High Court's interim orders releasing goods on bank guarantees and granting exemption benefits were wholly unsustainable. The Court ruled that prima facie case alone did not justify such interim relief in matters of public revenue, emphasized the balance of convenience favored the government, and rejected the notion that bank guarantees suffice in lieu of cash for governmental revenue. The High Court's orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Tendency of courts to grant interim orders.
2. Interim orders in tax recovery cases.
3. Alternative statutory remedies under Article 226.
4. Interim orders granting principal relief.
5. Jurisdictional issues in filing writ petitions.
6. Impact of interim orders on public revenue and administration.
7. Judicial hierarchy and adherence to higher court decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Tendency of Courts to Grant Interim Orders:
The court expressed concern over the increasing tendency of some courts to grant interim orders, often ex parte and non-speaking, which have the potential for public mischief. This practice was condemned in several cases, including Samarias Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Samuel and others. The court emphasized the need for caution and restraint in granting such orders, especially when they could impair public interest.

2. Interim Orders in Tax Recovery Cases:
In Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, the court reiterated that High Courts should not, as a rule, grant stay of tax recovery in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless under very exceptional circumstances. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that no prejudice is caused to taxpayers if they ultimately succeed, while also protecting the authority levying the tax to ensure the functioning of essential civic services.

3. Alternative Statutory Remedies under Article 226:
The court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa held that when a statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy, it is not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The court stressed that Article 226 should not be used to bypass statutory procedures unless there are extraordinary situations requiring such intervention.

4. Interim Orders Granting Principal Relief:
In Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., the court criticized the practice of granting interim orders that practically allow the main relief sought in the writ petition without hearing the opposite parties. The court emphasized that such drastic interim orders should not be passed without at least hearing those who made the order, as it could lead to devastating consequences.

5. Jurisdictional Issues in Filing Writ Petitions:
The court addressed the issue of writ petitions being filed in far-away courts with doubtful jurisdiction, as seen in Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. The court noted that such practices delay prompt return and contest, and often serve as a legal maneuver to make it difficult for officials to move applications to vacate stays.

6. Impact of Interim Orders on Public Revenue and Administration:
The court observed that interim orders have often jeopardized the collection of public revenue and prejudiced the budgets of governments and local authorities. The court cited examples where interim orders have led to administrative paralysis and disruption of essential services. The court emphasized the need for circumspection in granting interim relief, particularly against orders of public officials acting in discharge of their statutory duties.

7. Judicial Hierarchy and Adherence to Higher Court Decisions:
The court stressed the importance of maintaining judicial hierarchy and the need for lower courts to accept the decisions of higher courts. The court referred to the observations in Cassell and Co. Ltd. v. Broome, emphasizing that the judicial system only works if the decisions of the supreme appellate tribunal are loyally accepted by lower courts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the orders of the learned single judge and the Division Bench in the present case were unsustainable. The court emphasized that governments cannot be run on mere bank guarantees and that interim orders in matters of public revenue should not be granted merely because a prima facie case has been shown. The balance of convenience and public interest must be considered. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the interim orders were vacated.

---