(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) 1. During the course of hearing of the appeal, there was limited consensus among all the learned counsel appearing on both sides that the impugned order dated 07.12.2011 was an interim order in the petitions which are pending and which are also required to be heard for final disposal. It was further conceded that the terms of bid which were finalised and recorded in para 7 of the impugned order could not be complied within the prescribed time limit on account of either the bids expected to be received were not received or because some bids were received after the due date. But in any case the impugned order has not resulted into sale or even finalisation of the bidding process for the lands of the appellant-company. Against that backdrop of facts, it was agreed and fairly conceded that even pursuant to the original petitions, fresh orders may be required to be made and all the parties concerned were required to be given an opportunity of being heard by the learned Single Judge before making any further order in the main petition.
2. Apart from the above limited consensus, it was agreed by the appellant-company that even after an ad-hoc payment of around 11 crores rupees by November, 2011, the company had accepted admitted liability towards the workmen in the region of Rupees 20 crores which the appellant- company was required and prepared to immediately pay regardless of delay in sale of their land. It was however, for the parties to workout the manner and the proportion in which such amount is to be disbursed to the workmen concerned. It was further agreed and conceded on behalf of the appellant- company that the payment as aforesaid, now offered to be made, is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and as soon as such payment is accepted by or on behalf of the workmen concerned, it would amount to only part or full payment of the admitted liability towards the workmen, without prejudice to any other and further claims of legal dues of such workmen. The appellant having made such offer of payment in accordance with the affidavit dated 24.02.2012 of the Director of the appellant-company and such offer having been unilaterally made, learned counsel for the original petitioners have agreed to accept such amount in such manner and such proportion as may be fixed by learned Single Judge after hearing the parties concerned and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties as also the other claims of the parties.
3. Accordingly the appeal does not survive for any order on merit and it is disposed of by consent of the parties with liberty to all the parties to take necessary contentions before learned Single Judge before any further orders are made in the petitions which are pending.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 3525 of 2012 and 2859 of 2012 In view of the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, these Civil Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
[D H WAGHELA, J.]
msp
[G B SHAH, J.]