JUDGMENT 1. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.5.1992 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Kota, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge has set aside the order dated 2.4.1992 passed by the Munsif (South), Kota City and whereby he has cancelled the lottery drawn by the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the UIT' ) for allotment of commercial plots to Thadi holders. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 3.3.1992 against the State of Rajasthan and UIT, Kota alleging therein that they were doing their business on Thadi & Thela and this was the only source of their livelihood for all the members of Phutkar Thadi Holders Union, Kota and they were doing the said business, since 1980. According to the plaintiff-non-petitioners Nos. l to 23 a lottery was drawn by the UIT, Kota on 29.2.1992 and allotment of commercial plots has been made in favour of persons, who were not entitled and eligible to be considered for allotment of plots of land. A number of persons, who are doing service or are having independent business have been given such plots. The plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 have claimed that the action of the UIT is arbitrary and suffers from malice and that constitutional rights of the plaintiffs have been violated. In the application filed for grant of temporary injunction the plaintiffs prayed that the UIT be directed no to give possession of the plots to the persons in whose favour lottery has been drawn. They be not given any allotment letter and no amount be accepted from them. No agreement be executed with them. A prayer was also made for issue of mandatory order for allotment of plots to those persons who were having possession prior to 1980. 3. The UIT filed a reply to the application and denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they were doing business on Thadi and that they were members of Phutkar Thadi Holders Union (for short 'Union'). The list of membership was produced before the Court. The UIT also stated that it had prepared a list of eligible persons after survey of Thadi holders and names of those persons were included in the draw of lottery who were earning livelihood by doing business on the Thadis. The list of membership was produced before the Court. The UIT also stated that it had prepared a list of eligible persons after survey of Thadi holders and names of those persons were included in the draw of lottery who were earning livelihood by doing business on the Thadis. The UIT also states that it a took a policy decision to remove Thadis from the various residential colonies of Kota because the same were causing traffic obstruction and were also destroying the beauty of the colonies and at the same time there was always an apprehension of accidents. This decision was implemented for Talvandi, Mahavir Nagar, and Keshavpura Road colonies. As per the scheme Thadi holders were to be removed from their existing places and were to be allotted commercial plots on the basis of a lottery. The UIT also stated that none of the plaintiffs were doing their business on Thadi in either of the three colonies. 4. The present petitioners, who were impleaded as parties on their application, filed a separate reply. In their reply the petitioners contested the claim of the plaintiffs that they were members of Phutkar Thadi Holders Union and were doing the business on Thadis. The petitioners also claimed that the plaintiffs were doing business of selling vegetables on Thelas throughout the city. The petitioners stated that the allegations made by the plaintiffs in respect of various individuals were factually incorrect. They also stated that they will suffer irreparable loss by grant of injunction because they will be deprived of their livelihood. 5. After considering rival pleadings and after hearing the parties the learned trial Court observed that from the documents which had been placed on record, it was borne out that the plaintiffs were members of Phutker Thadi Holders Union. It further observed that merely by being members of the Union the plaintiff did ndtacquire a right to allotment of a piece of land because they were not doing the business on a stationary Thadi or Body but were doing the business of fruits and vegetables. The court also noted that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to counter the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party and they have failed to establish that they were doing business in Talvandi at the disputed site. The court also noted that the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to counter the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party and they have failed to establish that they were doing business in Talvandi at the disputed site. On that basis the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour, the trial Court also held that by grant of injunction irreparable injury will be suffered by the defendants No. 3 to 11 and also by the defendant No. 2. The beatification of the city will be hampered and other defendants would be deprived of their livelihood. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 the learned lower appellate court has observed that the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short 1959 Act') and the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Rules, 1962 (for short 1962 Rules') as also the Government orders have not been followed in conducting the lottery. No proper notice was published in the newspaper for drawl of the lottery. The court also observed tat when the plaintiffs were members of the Union there was no reason to exclude them from the lottery. On that basis the learned lower appellate Court held that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiffs and further observed that if lottery drawn on 29.2.1992 is recognised,irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiffs as compared to the defendant-respondents and that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff- petitioners. On that basis the learned lower appellate Court passed orders for cancellation of lottery and issued a direction that the possession of the plots be not given to those in whose favour the lottery was drawn and no documents be executed in favour of such allottee. 6. Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the learned lower appellate Court has argued that the learned lower appellate Court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in setting aside lottery drawn on 25.2.1992. Shri Sharma argued that the learned lower appellate Court has misconstrued the provisions of 1959 Act and has issued the order of injunction without giving any reason whatsoever for holding that the irreparable injury will be suffered by the plaintiff-non -petitioners No. 1 to 23 and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. Shri Sharma argued that the learned lower appellate Court has misconstrued the provisions of 1959 Act and has issued the order of injunction without giving any reason whatsoever for holding that the irreparable injury will be suffered by the plaintiff-non -petitioners No. 1 to 23 and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. Shri S. C. Gupta, learned counsel for he non- petitioners has argued that the lottery drawn by the UTI was clearly malicious and the non-petitioners No. to 23 who were doing their business, were unlawfully excluded from consideration for the purpose of drawal of lottery. Shri Gupta submitted that his clients were doing their business at Talvandi for last over one decade and that the lower appellate Court has correctly held that they were having prima facie case for grant of injunction. Shri Gupta argued that if the non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 are now displaced from the place of their business they will certainly suffer grievous injury. They will be deprived of their livelihood altogether. 7. Before examining the legality and propriety of the order of injunction passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Kota I deem it proper to observe that principles for grant or refusal of the injunctions have been stated and reiterated by the courts of his country during last many decades. From these decisions it is clear that three well recognised ingredients namely strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, must be fulfilled before an order of injunction can be granted by the Court either under Order 39 rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. or Section 151, C.P.C. or any other provision of law. It is bounden duty of the applicant to satisfy the court about the existence of these three ingredients in his favour. The court must also record a positive finding that strong prima facie case exists in favour of the applicant. It must also record a specific finding that irreparable injury will be suffered by he applicant and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant before passing an order of injunction in favour of the applicant. 8. After the commencement of the Constitution on 26.1.1950, the State has assumed multi-dimensional role. It must also record a specific finding that irreparable injury will be suffered by he applicant and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant before passing an order of injunction in favour of the applicant. 8. After the commencement of the Constitution on 26.1.1950, the State has assumed multi-dimensional role. The old and antiquated concept of the State as an agency for collection of the revenue or an agency which is required to maintain law and order and defend the frontiers of the country has long ago given way to the concept of modern State having enormous social responsibility. The State is obliged to make laws for giving effect to the directive principles of State policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution which are regarded as fundamental in the governance of the country. In order to fulfill is constitutional goals, the State is required to diversify is activity and to assign different roles to statutory and non-statutory bodies. These are popularly known as instrumentalities and agencies of the State. The scope of the term 'State' used in Article 12 of the Constitution of India has been enlarged by the judge made law in the form of decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 ; Sukhdeo Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 ; Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. The Fnternatonal Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 ; Ajay Hasia v. Halid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 ; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojonath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 , and other decisions. These different types of Bodies and agencies including local authorities, Panchayats, Municipalities, UITs ect. are required to discharge their public law obligations for the betterment of the society as a whole or a part of it. Various legislation have been enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislatures for regulating the powers and functions of these bodies, instrumentalities or agencies. In the course of discharge of their duties, the State, its functionaries, its agencies and instrumentalities at times take such actions or make orders which may affect one or more individuals. Naturally, such individual or bodies approach courts of law for vindication of their rights by different types of suits and petitions. Often applications for interim relief are filed in such type of litigations. Naturally, such individual or bodies approach courts of law for vindication of their rights by different types of suits and petitions. Often applications for interim relief are filed in such type of litigations. Therefore, in addition to the three well recognised ingredients, the court must always take into consideration the element of public interest while deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction involving his (sic the) actions of the State or its functionaries, instrumentalities or agencies which are taken for the benefit of the public or a section of the public. The court must carefully weigh the circumstances of every such case in order to decide as to whether grant of injunction will cause injury to the public interest or refusal will result in such injury. 9. So far as the present case is concerned, the learned Munsif considered application filed by the plaintiff non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 for grant of temporary injunction. After taking into consideration the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Munsif recorded a categorical finding that although plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 are members of Phutkar Thadi Holders Union, non material had been placed by them on the record of the court to establish that they were doing their business on Thadi or Body at the disputed site in Talvandi and that they had acquired a right of participation in the lottery to be drawn by the UIT Learned Munsif also adverted his attention to the important questions relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury. After carefully analysing the facts on record he concluded that the applicants will not suffer irreparable injury and that the balance of convenience was also not in their favour. 10. Although, the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Kota has passed a rather lengthy order, he has not recorded any concrete finding about the right of the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 to participate in the lottery drawn by the UIT. The learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3 has not recorded a finding that the conclusion recorded by the learned Munsif on the question of prima facie case, suffers from any error of law or was perverse or was arbitrary. What the learned Additional Civil Judge has held, is that the UIT has not followed the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 or the rules framed thereunder. What the learned Additional Civil Judge has held, is that the UIT has not followed the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 or the rules framed thereunder. On the basis of this finding alone he held that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 to 23. Proceeding further, the learned Additional Civil Judge recorded one-line bald conclusion that the plaintiff-non- petitioners No. 1 to 23 will suffer irreparable injury and that the balance or convenience was also in their favour. This conclusion is totally bereft of reasons much less cogent reasons. There is a total non-application of mind by the learned Additional Civil judge on the two important ingredients which are required to be fulfilled by an applicant. Without giving any reason the learned Additional Civil Judge proceeded to pass impugned order cancelling the lottery drawn on 29.2.1992 and he also issued other directions. 11. In my opinion, the order dated 11.5.1992 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned Additional Civil Judge has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and has acted arbitrarily in passing the impugned order of injunction. The learned Additional Civil Judge has not even bothered to keep in mind the law laid down by this court in Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur, AIR 1977 Rajasthan 196. That was a case in which the trial Court had refused to grant injunction. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal against the order of trial court and passed an order of injunction. While holding that ordinarily the court of appeal must not interfere with the exercise of discretion of granting and refusing to grant an injunction, which is exercised by a trial court,' this court further held that it will be fully justified in interfering with the order of lower appellate Court in such a matter while exercising revisional jurisdiction. This court observed : "The order refusing temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant records. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant records. The mere possibility of the appellate Court coming to a different conclusion on the same facts and evidence will also not justify interference. The appellate Court would be acting contrary to the well established principles moreso when it does not deal with the reasoning that prevailed with the trial Court and further when it does not apply its judicial mind on the materials placed on the record." 12. Since the learned Additional Civil Judge has completely ignored the principles of law laid down by this Court, the order dated 115.1992 passed by him deserves to be set aside on this score alone. Apart from the aforesaid serious infirmities I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge has to be set aside by this court, because:- (i) the learned Additional Civil Judge has not recorded a finding that the plaintiff non-petitioners No. 1 to 23 were doing business at the disputed site in Talvandi; (ii) the learned Additional Civil Judge has not given any reason in support of his conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioners No.1 to 23 and that they will suffer irreparable injury in the event of refusal of injunction; (iii) the learned Additional Civil Judge has not applied his mind to the question of public interest. The facts which have come on record unmistakably show that the UIT had framed a scheme for beautification of the City of Kota and for that purpose it had decided to remove Thadi holders, who were doing business in residential colonies. The UIT had formulated this scheme because persons doing business of Thadies etc. were obstructing the traffic on the road of those areas; were always prone to accidents and the beauty of the residential colonies was marred. In order to achieve its objectives the UIT conducted a survey and prepared list of those persons who were doing their business permanently on Thadies. were obstructing the traffic on the road of those areas; were always prone to accidents and the beauty of the residential colonies was marred. In order to achieve its objectives the UIT conducted a survey and prepared list of those persons who were doing their business permanently on Thadies. A decision was taken to remove them from the particular places and to provide them alternative piece of land for doing business. Lottery was drawn from amongst those who were eligible. Thus there can be little doubt that the scheme framed by the UIT was in the larger interest of the general public and at the same time it was in the interest of Thadi holders themselves. By virtue of the grant of injunction by the Additional Civil Judge, the Thadi holders who have been given the alternative land will not be able to do their business on the alternative land and they will continue at their old places. Doing of business by them at the old places will completely upset the scheme framed by the UIT. The traffic hazards will continue. Such a situation cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated to be in public interest. Rather it is against public interest. 13. Another grave error which has been committed by the learned Additional Civil Judge while passing the order of injunction, is that he has virtually decided the main suit. With the cancellation of lottery drawn on 29.2.1992 the main suit has more or less been decided and the relief which could ordinarily be granted at he time of disposal of the suit has been granted by way of temporary injunction. Such an extraordinary order ought not to have been passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge in a casual and cursory manner. 14. Moreover while passing the impugned order the learned Additional Civil Judge has completely ignored the fact that a large number of Thadi holders in whose favour lottery had been drawn, acquired a right to get a piece of land in lieu of the displacement from the place of business. Cancellation of the lottery will directly affect their right. Most of them were not even parties before the court below and they were not given any opportunity of hearing and yet they have been condemned unheard inasmuch as lottery drawn in their favour has been cancelled. Cancellation of the lottery will directly affect their right. Most of them were not even parties before the court below and they were not given any opportunity of hearing and yet they have been condemned unheard inasmuch as lottery drawn in their favour has been cancelled. Thus the impugned order has been passed in total breach of the principles of natural justice. 15. The revision petition must therefore succeed and it is hereby allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge is set aside and quashed and the one passed by the learned Munsif (South), Kota City is restored. As a logical consequence of this, the injunction application filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. l to 23 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******