MCA/7/2007 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 7 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18295 of 2003 With MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2742 of 2004 ========================================================= MISTRY NILESH MAHENDRABHAI & 5 - Applicant(s) Versus MS. MONA KHANDHAR SECRETARY, & 2 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS SONAL R SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1 - 6. None for Opponent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 02/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
bases of the present contempt applications are the order passed by
this Court (Coram: M.S. Shah, J.) in Special Civil Application
No.282 of 2004 decided on 13th September, 2004 and the
order dated 25.11.2003 passed by this Court (Coram: P.B. Majmudar,
J.) in Special Civil Application No.4596 of 2003 & Ors and the
order dated 28.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court
(Coram: R.S. Garg & R.R. Tripathi, J.J.) in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1342 of 2003 & Ors.
The
learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that similar
contempt applications were filed by the other petitioners being
Misc. Civil Application No.5 of 2007 with other Contempt
Applications being MCA No.9 of 2007 and MCA No.10 of 2007 and this
Court (Coram: A.L. Dave and Bankim N. Mehta, J.J.), vide the order
dated 25.10.2007 found that the matter falls in the realm of
interpretation and it cannot be said that there is no justification
at all. The Court also found that there is no mens rea
behind the action and, therefore, this Court, in view of its
decision in case of ýSFakruddin Issufali v. State of Gujarat and
Orsýý, reported in 1984 GLH (U.J.), 70
did not take any action for contempt.
The
learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any
distinguishing position and hence, rather it is an admitted position
that the present Contempt Application are the same as they were
considered in respect of the other petitioners decided by this Court
as per the above referred order dated 25.1.2007.
In
view of the above and in view of the earlier decision in respect of
the very subject matter, we find that it would not be a case for
initiation of action for contempt.
Hence,
both the applications are dismissed accordingly.
(Jayant Patel, J.) 02.07.2008 (Akil Kureshi, J.) vinod