JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order dated 03.05.2010 passed in CWP No. 11072 of 2009, Bharat Hotels Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the prayer for interim relief made by the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) and has directed the appellant Municipal Council, Udaipur to issue necessary construction permission upon deposit of a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs towards the fees for environmental charges under the notified law. 2. The subject-matter of this appeal being confined to the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the prayer for interim relief in the writ petition; and else, the writ petition being posted for hearing before the learned Single Judge, only a brief reference to the background facts would suffice. On 13.05.2005, the respondent No.1, Bharat Hotels Limited moved an application before the appellant Municipal Council, Udaipur seeking permission for carrying out addition/alteration in the premises of "Grand Laxmi Vilas Palace, Udaipur". The appellant Municipal Council, in the first place, pointed out by its communication dated 05.11.2005 that the permission sought for could not be granted by it and the matter had been referred to the State Government for appropriate directions. On 10.07.2006, the writ petitioner again moved an application for such permission while resubmitting the addition/alteration drawings whereupon the State Government in its Local Self Department proceeded to accord sanction for granting construction permission with certain stipulations and conditions under its communication dated 13.07.2006 (Annex.P/4) that reads as under:- " vk;qDr Uxj ifj"kn mn;iqjA fo"k; % mn;iqj esa xzk.M y{eh foykl iSysl gksVy dks Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd~fr ds lEc/k esaA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd eSllZ Hkkjr gksVYl fyfeVsM }kjk izLrqr fuekZ.k dh ;kstuk@izLrko dks mn;iqj uxj fodkl U;kl Hkou fofu;e] 2000 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr bl 'krZ ds lkFk vuqeksfnr fd;s tkus dh Lohd~fr iznku dh tkrh gS fd eSllZ Hkkjr gksVYl fyfeVsM bl lEifr ds LokfeRo ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa yfEcr izdj.k esa gksus okys vkns'k ls ck/; gksxhA lkFk gh vkidks ;g Hkh funsZ'k iznr fd;s tkrs gS fd mn;iqj uxj fodkl U;kl Hkou fofu;e] 2000 esa mYysf[kr 'krksZa@izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk djk;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ;g vkns'k l{ke Lrj ls vueksfnr gSA " 3. Thereafter, the appellant, by the communication dated 16.10.2006 asked the writ petitioner to produce a No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board; and to deposit a sum of Rs. 93,95,417/- towards environmental fees for the purpose of granting such construction permission. The communication dated 16.10.2006 (Annex.P/5) reads as under:- " nh xzk.M y{eh foykl iSysl] mn;iqjA fo"k; % vukifr izek.k i= o 'kqYd tek djkus ckcr~A mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd Hkou vuqerh izdj.k ds fuEukuqlkj vukifr izek.k i= o 'kqYd olwy dj Hkou Lohd~fr tkjh dh tkuh gS% 1- iznq"k.k fu;U=.k e.My ls vukifr i= izkIr dj izLrqr djsaA 2- i;kZoj.k 'kqYd ds 93]95]417@& ( rjk.kos yk[k fiPpk.kos gtkj pkj lkS l=g #i;s ek= ) curs gSA vr% mDr izek.k i= ( ,u0vks0lh0 ) o i;kZoj.k 'kqYd mijksDr i= izkfIr ds vUnj e;kn 7 fnu esa ifj"kn dk;kZy; esa tek djkosaA " 4. Thereafter, on 19.02.2007, the writ petitioner addressed one communication (Annex.P/6) to the State Government in its Local Self Department raising objection against the demand so raised by the appellant while stating that the proposed addition/alteration plan relates only to about 13,643.46 square feet of area and the demand of environmental fees on the entire 9,39,883.12 square feet of area was unjustified. The writ petitioner has also referred to the communication dated 03.08.2009 (Annex.P/7) with the averments that under this communication the State Government raised the queries as to under which law the environmental fees was being charged and as to whether it would be legally justified to demand the fees in respect of the entire area ? The writ petitioner has then referred to the communication sent by the appellant on 24.09.2009 (Annex.P/8) seeking to justify the demand. 5. With reference to the aforesaid facts, the writ petition has been filed with the submissions, inter alia, that the matter is governed by 'the Urban Region Building Regulations, 2000' and there was no justification to make a demand under 'the Controlled Construction Region Building Regulations, 2000' contrary to the decision of the State Government. It is also submitted that the Controlled Construction Region Building Regulations, 2000 have not been notified in the official gazette and no fees could be demanded thereunder. It is also submitted that the Controlled Construction Region Building Regulations, 2000 have not been notified in the official gazette and no fees could be demanded thereunder. It is further contended in the writ petition that the environmental fees, if at all, could only be charged in respect of the area of the proposed construction and not the entire land held by the petitioner. On the basis of such grounds and submissions, the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) filed the writ petition only in the year 2009 and claimed the following relief's:- "i. the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs; ii. the impugned demand of Rs. 93,95,417/- raised in the name of the environment fee for addition/alteration plan in question of the petitioner may kindly be declared null and void and be set aside; iii. the demand so raised by the impugned order dated 16.10.2006 (An.P.5) and reiterated vide letter dated 24.09.2009 (An.P.8) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits as if these orders were never passed and issued; iv. the respondents may kindly be directed not to create any hindrance in the addition/alteration plan of the petitioner and the petitioner may be permitted to raise construction in pursuance of the sanction of the State Government; v. it may kindly be declared that the Controlled Construction Region, Building, Regulations, 2000 did not come in force therefore, having no force of law and cannot be enforced and no demand can be raised against the petitioner under these Regulations; vi. without prejudice to the aforesaid relief's and in the alternative it is prayed that the if Controlled Construction Region, Building, Regulations, 2000 are made applicable then the provision regarding demand of environment fee/or Jheel Sanrakshan Fee @ Rs. 10/- per Sq.Ft. of the entire land may be declared ultra vires to Article 14, 243 (X) and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as, as per Municipality Act 1959 and UIT Act 1959; vii. Any other appropriate relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 6. Any other appropriate relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 6. In the writ petition so filed by the respondent No.1, the learned Single Judge considered the matter on 03.05.2010; and, while posting the writ petition for final hearing in the month of July 2010, proceeded to pass the interim order that has given rise to this intra-court appeal. The impugned order dated 03.05.2010 reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the so called Regulations of the year 2000 under which the levy @ Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. as environmental charges has been demanded by the Municipal Council, Udaipur are not yet notified and that in pursuance of Annex.P/7 letter dated 3.8.2009 of the State Government, Local Self Department the Municipal Council, Udaipur has responded vide Annex.P.8 dated 24/9/2009 that the Building Committee vide meeting dated 22/7/2006 has decided to demand environmental charges @ Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. of the entire area. Specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these Rules have not been notified & therefore it is not the applicable law as yet. Learned counsel for the respondent-both for the State Government and Municipal Council, Udaipur, despite specific query by the Court, were not able to produce before the Court the notified Regulations or Gazette Notification in this regard on the basis of which environmental charges @ Rs. Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. is being demanded & permission to raise construction by the petitioner hotel has been withheld by the impugned communication Annex.P/5 dated 16/10/2006. Consequently, this Court is constrained to stay the operation of the demand order Annex.P/5 dated 16/10/2006. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits under the previously notified law such charges would work out to Rs. 1.5 lacs, which the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit subject to final disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, it is directed that necessary permission to raise construction may be issued to the petitioner by the respondent Municipal Council, Udaipur upon deposit of Rs. 1.5 lacs as the fees for environmental charges under the notified law. The said deposit will be subject to final disposal of this writ petition. Accordingly, it is directed that necessary permission to raise construction may be issued to the petitioner by the respondent Municipal Council, Udaipur upon deposit of Rs. 1.5 lacs as the fees for environmental charges under the notified law. The said deposit will be subject to final disposal of this writ petition. The respondents are at liberty to apply for modification of this order with the production of Gazette Notification containing the revised rates. List the writ petition for hearing in the month of July, 2010." 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner has sought the relief in the writ petition of being permitted to raise construction without hindrance as per addition/alteration plan and the learned Single Judge has been in error in granting this relief at the interim stage. The learned counsel contended that the interim order as passed by the learned Single Judge practically amounts to granting of the final relief at the interim stage contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has particularly referred to the decisions in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ram Sukhi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 733 , State of U.P. & Anr. v. Private Secretaries & Personal Assistants' Brotherhood, High Court, Allahabad & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 644 , and Union of India & Ors. v. Modiluft Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 65 . The learned counsel also contended that while granting this relief, the learned Single Judge has not considered the relevant aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury particularly when the writ petition questioning the order dated 16.10.2006 has itself been filed nearly three years later, only in the year 2009, without proper explanation for inordinate delay. The learned counsel also endeavoured to submit that the demand of environmental fees has been raised strictly in accordance with law and the learned Single Judge was not justified in staying this demand. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has duly supported the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and particularly submitted that the correctness of, and authority for, the communication dated 03.08.2009 (Annex.P/7) remains seriously in doubt. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) strenuously argued that the order impugned remains exclusively an interim measure during the pendency of the writ petition and cannot be said to be having any traces of finality. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) strenuously argued that the order impugned remains exclusively an interim measure during the pendency of the writ petition and cannot be said to be having any traces of finality. The learned counsel contended that, in fact, granting or not granting the construction permission is not the real matter in issue in the writ petition; but it is only the quantum of fees which is really and substantially in issue. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order as passed by the learned Single Judge, for granting construction permission upon deposit of legally sustainable demand, cannot be said to be granting of an interim relief of final nature. The learned counsel submitted that the contention regarding delay in filing the writ petition has unnecessarily been suggested by the appellant seeking to enlarge the scope of this appeal whereas the facts borne on record are that right from the year 2006, the writ petitioner has been running from pillar to post seeking appropriate orders for construction permission that ultimately merged in the referred orders issued in the year 2009. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the writ petition filed in the year 2009 cannot be said to be belated or suffering from laches. The learned counsel also attempted to argue that the Controlled Construction Region Building Regulations, 2000 have neither come into force nor are applicable to the building in question which, according to the writ petitioner, does not even fall within the 'No Construction Zone'. 9. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record, we are, with respect, unable to concur with the learned Single Judge and unable to affirm the order impugned. 10. We are clearly of opinion that even if the writ petitioner had been able to make out a prima facie case worth consideration before the learned Single Judge, that, by itself, was not decisive of the question of grant of interim relief; and interim relief could not have been granted without examining other necessary factors particularly of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. A look at the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 makes it clear that after finding prima facie force in the submissions on behalf of the petitioner about want of notified regulations, the learned Single Judge proceeded to stay the demand raised as back as on 16.10.2006 and, at the same time, issued mandatory directions for granting necessary permission to raise construction upon the writ petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs as the fees for environmental charges under the notified law, of course, subject to the decision of the writ petition. We are, with respect, unable to concur with the learned Single Judge in granting such nature interim relief particularly when the other relevant aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury seems to have been overlooked. 11. Though the learned counsel for the contesting respondent-writ petitioner strenuously argued that granting of construction permission is not as such the subject-matter of writ petition and essentially the subject-matter relates to quantum of environmental fees but such submissions, in our considered opinion, do not make out a case for grant of interim relief of the nature noticed above. Even if it be assumed that the fundamental dispute relates to quantum of environmental fees, the ultimate relief as prayed in the writ petition is for granting construction permission and such an ultimate relief, in our view, could not have been granted at the interim stage. 12. It is also noticed that under the impugned order dated 16.10.2006, apart from environmental fees, a No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board was also demanded. This aspect relating to the No Objection Certificate has also gone overlooked in the order impugned; and if the impugned order is permitted to operate, the said requirement of No Objection Certificate from Pollution Control Board is rendered otiose for no reason or justification. 13. In the present case, we are clearly of opinion that neither balance of convenience is in favour of the writ petitioner nor could it be said that the writ petitioner would suffer irreparable injury if the stay as prayed for is declined. The facts remain that in the first place an application for construction permission was moved on 05.11.2005 and then another application was moved on 10.07.2006. The order sought to be questioned in the writ petition came to be passed as back as on 16.10.2006. The facts remain that in the first place an application for construction permission was moved on 05.11.2005 and then another application was moved on 10.07.2006. The order sought to be questioned in the writ petition came to be passed as back as on 16.10.2006. Though the writ petitioner has referred to the objection as raised by it on 19.02.2007 and then to certain exchange of correspondence, allegedly between the Government and the appellant-Municipal Council, but the fact of the matter remains that the basic order sought to be questioned in the writ petition was issued as back as on 16.10.2006 and the writ petition was filed only in the year 2009. With the writ petitioner having chosen to take up the litigation after three years, it was not a case where the denial of interim relief was going to cause inconvenience or irreparable injury to the petitioner. 14. Taking a comprehensive view of the matter with reference to the subject matter of the writ petition and the contentions of the parties, we are of considered opinion that pending adjudication in the writ petition, such nature interim order could not have been passed whereby the appellant was obliged to issue construction permission and the writ petitioner was permitted to raise construction. In the matter of present nature, the prayer for interim relief ought to have been refused. Thus, the impugned order cannot sustain itself. 15. We would hasten to make it clear that the matter has been considered in this judgment only on the question of grant of interim relief and else, we have not made any comment or observation on the merits of the controversy that is required to be adjudicated before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 16. For what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated; the impugned order is set aside without any comments on the merits of the case. The parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal allowed. *******