Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1337/2011 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1337 of 2011
=========================================================
GUJARAT
WOODEN INDUSTRY THROUGH PARTNER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 09/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. One
Gujarat Wooden Industry, a registered partnership firm
is before this Court complaining that respondent No.1 – GIDC is
not acting in accordance with law and though there is no order,
according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, existing in eye
of law, from any Court, the GIDC is not implementing its decision
dated 8.12.2005, a copy of
which is produced at Annexure-E to the petition – page 20.
2. The
petitioner has come to this Court by way of this petition playing
second innings. Earlier, the petitioner had come to this Court by
filing Special Civil Application No.935 of 2009 which was disposed of
by this Court (Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice K.A.Puj) by order dated
4.2.2009.
The Court
was pleased to observe as under.
“Having
heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and having
considered the averments made in the petition as well as draft
amendment and having considered the documents attached therewith,
the
Court is of the view that since the representation is made by the
petitioner to the respondent No.1 Corporation only
on 19.01.2009 ,
which is under consideration by the Corporation, it is not just and
proper for this Court to issue any direction at this stage except to
direct the respondent No.1 Corporation to decide the said
representation as early as possible. Moreover,
the respondent No.2
has filed suit against the respondent No.1 and if there is any
grievance to the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No.1
Corporation is not taking any action by virtue of the said suit and
injunction order also indirectly affects the petitioner, the
petitioner can move an appropriate application to be joined as a
party in the said suit and make appropriate representation in the
said suit. Even against the respondent No.3, if any grievance is
there, the petitioner can file separate suit against respondent
No.3. Since all these avenues are open for the petitioner, this
Court is not entertaining this
petition and if the petitioner so desirous, the petitioner can take
all these appropriate actions available to him under the law.
”
(emphasis
supplied).
3. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that, thereafter, the
petitioner did file an application in Regular Civil Suit No.105 of
2007 filed in the Court of Honourable Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Halol for being impleaded as party to the suit. Learned advocate for
the petitioner says that, the said application was rejected by Halol
Court.
3.1 Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that, thereafter, the plaintiff
of that suit (Regular Civil Suit No.105 of 2007) filed Misc. Civil
Application No.880 of 2010 before learned District Court, Panchmahals
for transfer of Regular Civil Suit No.105 of 2007 and the said
application came to be allowed by learned Principal District Judge,
Panchmahals at Godhra by order dated 5.7.2010.
3.2 Learned
advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that now that suit
has been transferred from Halol Court to the District Court,
Panchmahals, the petitioner is rendered remediless in the matter of
rejection of his application for being impleaded as party. Learned
advocate for the petitioner also vehemently submitted that since the
suit has been transferred from Halol Court to the District
Court, Panchmahals, the orders issued by the Halol
Court becomes nonest in the eye of law and, therefore, according to
the learned advocate for the petitioner, today, there is no order
prohibiting respondent No.1 herein – GIDC, from implementing
its order dated 8.12.2005, still however, for the reasons best known
to the GIDC, it is not implementing that order. Learned advocate for
the petitioner submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case which
must be entertained by this Court as the GIDC is not discharging its
duty which it is otherwise bound to discharge under the law.
4. The
Court is not able to accept the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the petitioner. The Court does not agree to the
submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that, ‘once
the suit filed before the Halol Court gets transferred to the
District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, the petitioner is rendered
remediless against rejection of his application for being impleaded
as party to the suit’.
4.1 The
Court is also not able to accept the submission made by learned
advocate for the petitioner that once the suit filed in the Court at
Halol is transferred to the District Court, Pachmahals, all orders
passed by the Halol Court come to an end automatically, meaning
thereby, they became nonest in the eye of law. Taking these
submissions into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the
present petition is thoroughly misconceived and misdirected
and hence, it deserves to be dismissed with costs. Filing of such
petition, more particularly, seeking enforcement of order dated
8.12.2005 against which first representation was filed by the
petitioner as is recorded by this Court in its order dated 4.2.2009
in Special Civil Application No.935 of 2009 on 19.1.2009 is nothing
but ‘an exercise of twisting arm’.
5. It
will be appropriate to mention herein that learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner though titled as ‘Gujarat Wooden
Industry’,
a registered partnership firm is operating ‘Weigh Bridge’ and
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also operating Weigh Bridge. From the
aforesaid facts, it can be understood that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the competitive activities of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
It was inquired from learned advocate as to under which provision of
law, it is legal for the petitioner to operate Weigh Bridge and
illegal for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to do the same thing.
5.1 Learned
advocate could not explain the same. Instead of that, he invited
attention of the Court to order dated 8.12.2005 wherein it is stated
that, so far as respondent No.2 herein is concerned, it was held by
the GIDC that, ‘it is not lawful to operate Weigh Bridge.’ Be that as
it may, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present petition
is filed only with a view to ventilate the personal grievance and
that too after waiting for long 4 years, i.e. after the order was
passed by the GIDC on 8.12.2005, the
first representation was filed by the petitioner on 19.1.2009.
6. The
petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/-. It is clarified
that deposit of this amount of costs with the Registry of this Court
shall be condition precedent for filing any further proceedings
before any Court including that of the District Court at Panchmahals.
7. Registry
is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Court,
Panchmahals at Godhra to be kept on file of Regular Civil Suit No.105
of 2007 filed in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Halol which is transferred to District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra
by order dated 5.7.2010 in Misc. Civil Application No.880 of 2010.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI,J)
To
be referred to the Reporters.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI,J)
pathan
Top