- (1.) THE remaining defects, which have not been removed, are taken note of and are ignored. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant on the merits of this appeal. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner of CWP No. 3745/2010 seeks to question the order dated 13.04.2012 as passed by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief. The order impugned, in its entirety, reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. In the meanwhile and until disposal of the writ petition, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuant to demand notice dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure-8) issued by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sumerpur, provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 4 lacs within a period of two months. The interim order dated 28.7.10 passed by this Court shall stand modified accordingly." The stay application disposed of accordingly."
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has strenuously argued that the demand as raised and sought to be enforced against the petitioner-appellant remains thoroughly baseless and rather against the decisions rendered in the criminal proceedings earlier adopted under Sections 28 (2) and 28(3) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961') wherein it was found that there was no criminality in the conduct of the petitioner-appellant and no avoidance in payment of market fees. It is submitted that the said matter having attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no justification that the respondents seek to recover a huge amount of more than Rs. 24 lacs under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1961. The learned counsel submitted that earlier, the learned Single Judge granted the interim relief staying coercive recovery proceedings but now, modification of the interim order with requirement of depositing an amount of Rs. 4 lacs would operate rather harsh on the appellant and would cause serious hardship. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions so made and having examined the record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this matter. The sum and substance of the matter remains that the learned Single Judge, while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after having heard the parties on the stay application, found it just and proper to continue with the earlier interim order that no coercive proceedings shall be taken against the appellant but now, on the condition that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. The grant or refusal of interim relief is essentially a matter of discretion of the Court concerned. Moreover, when the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is being exercised, which itself is discretionary and equitable in nature, grant or refusal of interim relief therein is plainly a matter of discretion; and, ordinarily, such exercise of discretion does not call for interference in intra-court appeal. The order impugned appears to have been passed by the learned Single Judge in balance of equities; and it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion in this matter is against any judicial principle.
(3.) SO far the merits of the case are concerned, we would not like to make any comment for the simple reason that the writ petition remains pending before the learned Single Judge. However, it may be observed that, prima facie, the submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant do not appear sufficient to persuade the Court to grant an interim relief of blanket nature in money recovery proceedings. The learned counsel suggested in the alternative that at the most, the petitioner-appellant might have been put to the condition of furnishing a solvent security. Again, this aspect too had been a matter of discretion; and when the learned Single Judge has not considered it proper to apply any such proposition, we find no reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;