Orissa HC Upholds Refusal To Bar Another Cement Unit’s Heavy Vehicles From Railway Crossing Pending Trial

The petitioner, a lessee of industrial land, claimed that a pathway and railway level crossing within its leasehold premises were intended for villagers’ pedestrian and cattle use, not for the opposite party’s heavy industrial traffic. The opposite party, whose IDCO-allotted land it said was otherwise inaccessible, obtained a Collector’s order permitting IDCO and its allottees to use the crossing, subject to railway-safety precautions

The petitioner challenged that order in a civil suit and sought a temporary injunction. The Trial Court refused the injunction, finding that the petitioner had not established balance of convenience or irreparable injury; the Appellate Court affirmed

The petitioner then invoked Article 227

Under Article 227, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and ordinarily cannot reappraise evidence or substitute its conclusions for those of subordinate courts; intervention is warranted for jurisdictional error, patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or disregard of fundamental legal principles (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil; Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel)

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience in the applicant’s favour, and likely irreparable injury; a prima facie case alone is insufficient (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh)

On appeal, a trial court’s discretionary injunction decision is not ordinarily displaced unless exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or contrary to settled principles (Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.)

The Court treated the pathway’s character, the parties’ leasehold rights, alternative access, and compliance with railway and wildlife-related conditions as disputed matters requiring evidence at trial

The Collector’s order provided for precautions, consultation with Railway authorities for heavy machinery, and protection of the railway line; the Court held that the petitioner’s concerns about non-compliance did not establish that the lower courts’ refusal was perverse

The Trial Court had considered the asserted access needs of the opposite party and local villagers against the petitioner’s apprehended injury, and the challenge to its finding about alternative access raised a factual dispute rather than demonstrating manifest perversity

The High Court therefore declined to reweigh the evidence or substitute its view under Article 227

It dismissed the petition and left undisturbed the orders refusing temporary injunction

It clarified that refusal of an injunction did not confer an unrestricted right to use the crossing: the Collector’s safety conditions and applicable legal requirements remained binding

Any earlier interim order was vacated