Judgment : Defendant in O.S.No.106 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court at Virudhachalam, is the revision petitioner. Plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs: “(i) to pass a decree declaring that the order dated 15. 1998 No.D3/L83/GM/TA/Es -111/98 is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unjust; (ii) to stay the operation of the order dated 15. 1998 passed in Order No.D3/L83 GM/TA/ES-111/98 till the disposal of the suit; (iii) to direct the defendant to pay the costs of this suit; and (iv) to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Thematerial averments in the plaint could be summarised thus: The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, which is running a drive-in-restaurant under the name and style of ‘Hotel Blue Diamond’. The defendant which is a Government of India undertaking allotted an extent of 3 acres of land to the plaintiff for the said purpose and the same is covered by a registered lease deed dated 29. 1982. On the basis of the lease deed executed by the defendant, the plaintiff has put up a building to attract tourists, officials and foreigners who visit Neyveli, Plaintiff has also constructed 33 luxury rooms and set up a high class sophisticated hygienic restaurant of international level and standards catering to the needs of foreigners and other businessmen from all over the country, who are having dealings with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. In or about 1995, the Tourism Department advised the plaintiff to have a bar attached to the restaurant in order to cater the needs of tourists and visitors from abroad visiting Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The plaintiff applied on 9. 1995 to the competent authority for the issuance of ‘no objection certificate’. It is said that the no objection certificate is very essential in order to run a bar in a restaurant. It is further averred that the then Deputy General Manager/Township Administrative Officer, who was the competent authority to issue ‘no objection certificate’. After due deliberation of all relevant facts, the Deputy General Manager (Township Administrative Officer), granted no objection certificate on 19. 1995 as per letter No.ES-3/TA/81. It is said that before granting no objection certificate, the Township Administrative Officer, inspected the Hotel and only after getting fully satisfied, he issued no objection certificate. After due deliberation of all relevant facts, the Deputy General Manager (Township Administrative Officer), granted no objection certificate on 19. 1995 as per letter No.ES-3/TA/81. It is said that before granting no objection certificate, the Township Administrative Officer, inspected the Hotel and only after getting fully satisfied, he issued no objection certificate. The Plaintiff after observing all legal formalities and after strict compliance with the conditions of FL-3 licence, applied to the State Government for licence. The State Government also issued FL-3 licence to the plaintiff to run a permit room in the restaurant. Even though no objection certificate was issued in the year 1995, the plaintiff was able to get licence only on 20.8.1997. After issuance of no objection certificate by the defendant, the plaintiff put up a luxurious room for housing the bar, a conference hall and other necessary additions. The plaintiff have also invested more than Rs.15,00,000 for making the additions. According to the plaintiff, it invested huge amounts only in the fond hope that the licence will be renewed automatically from 33. 1998. The plaintiff long prior to 33. 1998 applied for renewal of licence. The Collector of South Arcot observed all the formalities and recommended for the renewal of licence for a further period. The Assistant Commissioner, Cuddalore also authorised the plaintiff to have the permit till 33. 1998. Whileso, the defendant issued an order dated 15. 1998 that the no objection certificate issued by it, was cancelled. The letter also directed the plaintiff to stop the liquor bar forthwith. The reason stated was that there were objections and protests from the public. It was also said in that order that the no objection certificate was issued by a person not authorised to do so. According to the plaintiff, it has not violated any of the conditions of the lease deed and the no objection certificate has been cancelled without giving an opportunity to explain. It is for the above reasons, plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs stated above. 3. Along with the suit, plaintiff moved an application for injunction. The suit was filed during vacation. An ex parte order of injunction was granted on 6. 1998. .4. After receipt of notice regarding the granting of ex parte injunction, defendant filed a counter and wanted the injunction order to be vacated. 3. Along with the suit, plaintiff moved an application for injunction. The suit was filed during vacation. An ex parte order of injunction was granted on 6. 1998. .4. After receipt of notice regarding the granting of ex parte injunction, defendant filed a counter and wanted the injunction order to be vacated. In the counter affidavit, it was said that the defendant has not issued any such no objection certificate, and, even in the year 1992, the question arose whether such a bar should be allowed to function in that area. A positive decision was taken at that time not to permit any one to conduct a bar in the premises. According to the petitioner/defendant, the no objection certificate is not a genuine one and hat the same was not issued by the proper person. It is also said that against the person who issued the certificate, departmental proceedings are being initiated including criminal investigation through C.B.I. and one of the charges against the officer is the issuance of no objection certificate. It is also said that there is no application filed by plaintiff to get a no objection certificate, and no file is also available in the Office. It is further said that taking into consideration the fact that close to the schedule premises, there are educational institutions, mosque, church, etc. the public also objected to the running of a bar in the premises. It is, taking into consideration all these circumstances, the no objection certificate alleged to have been issued by the authority was cancelled. The defendant prayed for vacating the order of injunction. 5. After hearing both sides, the trial court, as per order dated 212. 1998, dismissed the injunction petition and vacated the interim order. The trial court held that the genuineness of Ex.A-4 is very much in doubt. It also held that even after the socalled N.O.C., there was various correspondence between the plaintiff and the petitioner/defendant, and in none of those correspondence, there is, any reference to the N.O.C. or the intention of the plaintiff to run a bar in the premises. The trial court also held that there are suspicious circumstances under which it came into existence. The trial court also held that there are suspicious circumstances under which it came into existence. The trial court further held that when serious objections had been raised by the members of the public, that also will have to be taken into consideration by the defendant, and, therefore, it is competent to withdraw the consent even if any such consent is given. The trial court further held that without a no objection certificate from the defendant, a bar cannot be run and the defendant cannot be compelled to issue a certificate under O.39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court held that the plaintiff has filed to prove a prima facie case and consequently, dismissed the injunction application. 6. Thematter was taken in appeal by the plaintiff before the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. The lower appellate court set aside the order and allowed the appeal and directed that the suit is to be disposed of within a period stated therein. 7. It is against the said judgment, the defendant has preferred this revision. 8. Since caveat was entered by the respondent, I heard the revision itself at the stage of admission. 9. It is true that against interim orders, when a discretion has been exercised by a court, the same is not ordinarily liable to be interfered with unless the same is exercised arbitrary or capriciously. 10. In this case, the trial court has given various reasons as to why the injunction shall not be granted. .11. The definite case of the plaintiff is that, it has obtained no objection certificate as per Ex.A-4 dated 19. 1995. The same is specifically denied in the counter. The trial court has given various reasons to suspect the genuineness. Even though Ex.A-4 is alleged to have been issued as early as 19. 1995, it is admitted by the plaintiff himself that he could not get licence for long time and only on 20.8.1997, a licence could be obtained. The authorities of the defendant came to know that the plaintiff has started a Bar, when they received so many complaints from the members of the public. Exs.B-6 to B-10 are such representations received by the defendant from members of the public. It could be seen therefrom that immediately after the plaintiff began to run liquor shop, the members of public objected. Exs.B-6 to B-10 are such representations received by the defendant from members of the public. It could be seen therefrom that immediately after the plaintiff began to run liquor shop, the members of public objected. It may be stated that even in the year 1992, the defendant has informed the District Collector that regarding the location of liquor shop, its consent also is to be obtained and they have taken positive decision not to issue no objection certificate since that affects the very management of the Institution. The defendant have also a case that after the so called no objection certificate under Ex.A-4, the plaintiff him self applied,. seeking permission to put up a construction in the nature of a conference hall. Ex.B-3 is such a letter. There was no statement in Ex.B-3 either about the no objection certificate or the intention of the plaintiff to start a Bar therein. Apart from the same, the trial court has also held in para.11 of the order as to how far Ex.B-4 was issued in suspicious circumstances. When the plaintiff relies on a document, the genuineness of the document also must be proved by him. It is true that the defendant admitted that the person, who signed the document is one of its officers. As against the officer, so many proceedings have been initiated by the authorities and even C.B.I., enquiry is pending against him. According to the defendant, the authority had no right to issue such no objection certificate, Even though the plaintiff may not be aware about the internal management and the power of the officers, when the plaintiff relies on a document and prima facie it is found that there are suspicious circumstances, merely because the plaintiff cannot know about the power of the officers, cannot be a ground to hold that is valid. 12. It is admitted that no objection certificate has to be issued by the defendant whenever renewal is also applied for. The earlier licence has come to an end on 33. 1998. Thereafter, the plaintiff was not in a position to run a bar. The defendant has refused to issue no objection certificate for two reasons as stated in Ex.A-10. (1) various complaints from the members of the public and (2) the earlier no objection certificate is not valid. The earlier licence has come to an end on 33. 1998. Thereafter, the plaintiff was not in a position to run a bar. The defendant has refused to issue no objection certificate for two reasons as stated in Ex.A-10. (1) various complaints from the members of the public and (2) the earlier no objection certificate is not valid. It is admitted by the plaintiff himself that no objection certificate is very essential in order to run a bar in the restaurant. The defendant is not willing to issue no objection certificate. In one of the earlier decisions of this Court reported in Neyveli Lignite Corporation v. Collector of South Arcot, etc. Neyveli Lignite Corporation v. Collector of South Arcot, etc. Neyveli Lignite Corporation v. Collector of South Arcot, etc. , 1990 Writ L.R. 489, wherein the defendant itself is a party. A similar question came up for consideration. In paras.4 and 5 of the judgment, his Lordship Justice P.S.Misra, (as His Lordship) then was) held thus: “4. It appears, however, that the petitioner will still have the right which any owner of a building or a shop will have in relation to any tenant in occupation of such a building or a shop. Besides, when the petitioner Corporation are providing other amenities to the township, they may have concern with any change that any policy of the State is likely to make in the atmosphere of the township. With that concern they may bring to the notice of the respondent/State Government their Objections to location of any liquor shops for which they may have a right independently of any policy decision of the State Government for saying not to opening of a liquor shop in a premises or a shop belonging to them unless they have licenced the tenants in the house or the shop extending a right to them to run a liquor shop. Keeping in view this privilege which the petitioner may have with respect to the Neyveli Township, the respondents in their return have stated categorically that: ”As the auction purchaser has to select only an unobjectionable place in the Neyveli Township and get a “no objection certificate’ from the petitioner Corporation, it was the look out the Neyveli Lignite Corporation either to give no objection certificate or not..” It is obvious that one of the grounds on which the petitioner may refuse to give a no objection certificate will be that they have not licenced any particular area for the purpose of running any liquor show and that they have allowed location of liquor shops in a specified area of such leaseholds in he hands of the tenants or agreed to lease to any tenant liquor shops and in no other area. 5.It is therefore clear that the implementation of the policy decision of the State Government with respect to the location of six liquor shops to which petitioner Corporation have already agreed, will depend upon the situs with respect to which the petitioner give no objection certificate and at no other place.” [Italics supplied] 13. I had an occasion to follow the above decision in the decision reported in Mariyayee v. The Commissioner and Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu , (1998)3 MLJ. 145 , wherein I have held that without consent of the owner, a liquor shop cannot be allowed to e run in the premises. When the defendant has got the right to decide, whether to issue or not to issue a no objection certificate, the court cannot compel the defendant and order that the no objection certificate already granted is not liable to be cancelled at all or that the no objection certificate once granted shall remain in force all along. The licence is granted only for a period of one year and the same is liable to be renewed every year. The land is well settled that even the renewal application will be in the nature of granting fresh licence. The defendant is entitled to withdraw the no objection certificate or object to the grant of renewal when it feels that the no objection certificate already issued is not in interest of the company or in the interest of the public. 14. The defendant is entitled to withdraw the no objection certificate or object to the grant of renewal when it feels that the no objection certificate already issued is not in interest of the company or in the interest of the public. 14. These facts were not taken into consideration by the lower appellate court when it set aside the order. 15. In the result, I find that the lower appellate court has not taken into consideration the various reasons given by the trial court and has set aside the order without valid reasons. When the trial court has exercised a discretion, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is very much limited. The discretion of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with unless the lower appellate court feels that the discretion exercised by the trial court is arbitrary or capricious. There is no such finding by the lower appellate court. I find that the order of the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside and I do so, the order is set aside. 16. Revision is allowed and the C.M.A.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is set aside and that of the trial court in I.A.No.430 of 1998 in O.S.No.106 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam is restored. There will be no order as to costs. C.M.P.No.455 of 2000 is closed.