MCA/922/2008 4/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 922 of 2008 In MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 369 of 2005 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 328 of 1994 ========================================================= NILESH TEXTILE MILLS - Applicant(s) Versus GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & 5 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PR NANAVATI for Applicant(s) : 1, M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Opponent(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 2 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 23/06/2008 ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present petition is preferred for initiation of the proceedings for
contempt alleging defiance to the assurance given in the order dated
24.7.2007 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 369/2005 and it is
also stated in the petition that there is also breach of the
declaration made in the proceedings of Appeal From Order No.
328/1994 which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated
24.10.1994.
Heard
Ms. Contractor for Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner and Mr. Gupta for
the respondents.
It
appears that after the order dated 24.10.1994 passed by this Court
in Appeal From Order No. 328/1994, the construction has been
demolished as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in
the year 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner did prefer Contempt
Application No. 369/2005 on the premise that the action was to be
taken under Gujarat Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1972 and the said declaration was not complied with.
It appears that in the said proceedings ultimately the petitioner
was satisfied with the declaration on the part of the respondents to
consider the representation and to take appropriate decision. It is
an admitted position that thereafter, the representation has been
considered by the respondents and order dated 9.10.2007 has been
passed. The ground for non-regularization of alleged construction is
that it was falling in the margin area.
Under
the circumstances, as such when the decision is already taken, it
cannot be said that there is any breach of the declaration made in
the order dated 24.7.2007 in the proceedings of Misc. Civil
Application No. 369/2005. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the
decision of the respondents, the petitioner may resort to
appropriate remedy as may be available in law.
Learned
Counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that public
advertisement was given on 6.3.2002 for regularization of all
illegal construction by GIDC and therefore, the petitioner having
acted upon the same and the respondents having made declaration in
the earlier Contempt proceedings, if there is non-regularization of
the construction which was made by the petitioner, it can be said
that there is defiance. We are afraid that such contention can be
accepted when it is not expressly stated in the order. Further
regularization, even if to be considered, has to be as per the
policy. In any case, while sitting in Contempt jurisdiction, we
would not examine the validity of the order dated 4.10.2007 nor it
is required for us, more particularly, when the declaration was only
to consider the representation and to decide the same, which has
been done in the present case and hence the attempt on part of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
In
view of the above, the present application is disposed of
accordingly.
It
is clarified that in the event challenge is made to the order passed
by GIDC, any observations made by this Court shall not prejudice the
rights of either sides in such proceedings.
(Jayant
Patel,J.)
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)