1. The petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief and direction:
"6(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to shift electricity substation installed in sub plot no.1 in Nishant-2 Bungalow in Final Plot No.182 of original survey No.375 in T P Scheme No.5 in Sim of Vejalpur, Mouje Vejalpur, Dist-Sub-Dist: Ahmedabad."
2. Mr.
Tarak Damani, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner and submitted that electricity sub-station has been illegally installed in the plot of the petitioner, i.e. Sub-Plot No.1 in Nishant-II Bungalow in Final Plot No.182 of Original Survey No.375 in T.P. Scheme No.5 in Sim of Vejalpur, Mouje Vejalpur, District Sub-District Ahmedabad.
3. So as to substantiate the submission, Mr. Damani, learned advocate for the petitioner, has relied on the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the Board of Nominees in Arbitration Suit No.175 of 1997.
4. It appears that the in the said order, the Board of Nominees has observed and declared that opponent No.3 in the said arbitration suit, i.e. Ahmedabad Electricity Company, does not have any legal right to construct/install electricity sub-station on the plot of the opponent No.1 society.
5. On perusal of the cause title of the said suit, it emerges that opponent No.1 in the said suit was Abeel Co-operative Housing Society Limited and present petitioner was not party to said proceedings. Thus, the said observation seems to have been made by the Board of Nominees with reference to said Abeel Co-operative Housing Society Limited. It is also not clear as to whether any further proceedings pursuant to and/or against the said judgment and order dated 15.12.2005 have been taken out by any of the parties concerned in the said arbitration suit, or not.
6. Under the circumstances, merely on the basis of the observations made by the Board of Nominees in the said order with reference to opponent No.1 of the said suit, i.e. Abeel Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the relief as prayed for in present petition cannot be granted.
7. Besides this, the relief prayed for by the petitioner amounts to seeking execution of the order of the Board of Nominees.
8. This Court would not permit the petitioner to invoke prerogative writ jurisdiction for execution of statutory authority's or adjudicating authority's order. This Court is not inclined to exercise prerogative writ jurisdiction for executing orders of first adjudicating authority and/or to covert the writ proceeding into execution proceeding.
9. If the petitioner desires execution of the order passed by the Board of Nominees, then the petitioner should approach appropriate forum/authority, which would execute the order of the Board of Nominees. The writ jurisdiction ought not be invoked for executing the orders of the Board of Nominees.
10. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the letter dated 5.10.2010 said to have been addressed by present respondent company to the above-referred Abeel Co-operative Housing Society Limited (and not to the petitioner).
11. Learned advocate for the petitioner, particularly relied upon last two paragraphs, which read thus:
"We hereby call upon the Chairman and Secretary of both the Societies that as per the agreement and Indemnity Bond given by the society, you are required to give alternate place with substation and shifting cost as applicable. Failure on part of the Societies to resolve the issue between members as per the order of Board of Nominees and Tribunal, the company shall be compelled to take necessary civil and criminal actions. In case of any disruption/damages caused to electric substation, the company shall have no other alternative but to disconnect the supply of all the members of the society.
We are also enclosing herewith letter received from M/s. Builders Home stating facts on their side. We hereby call upon the Secretary and Chairman of the Societies to meet the undersigned within 15 days from receipt of this letter so as to reply them appropriately by the Company."
12. On perusal of the said communication and particularly in last two paragraphs on which the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon, it becomes clear that the dispute is between two private parties viz. limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and the dispute is a private dispute. This Court would not exercise prerogative writ jurisdiction for entertaining and considering private dispute of civil nature between two private parties. Regular civil remedy is available to the petitioner for such purpose.
13. Furthermore, the dispute between two private parties is such which involves the disputed issues of fact which can be examined only in regular trial and it would not be practicable or feasible to examine disputed issues in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. The petition is, therefore, disposed of.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top