IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1292 of 2012
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30541 of 2007
With
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11670 of 2012
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1292 of 2012
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
===================================== =====================================
GUJARAT MERITIME BOARD THRO' SECRETARY, Appellant(s)
Versus
M D THAKKER Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance :
MS. RUJAL D SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR AS SUPEHIA for Respondent(s) : 1, =====================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 17/10/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging common judgment and order dated 07/03/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 30536, 30539 and 30541 of 2007 by which, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the petitions filed by the petitioners – respondent herein and quashed and set aside the orders dated 23/11/2007 as well as 14/12/2007.
2. We have heard Ms. Rujal D. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant – original respondent and Mr. Supehia, learned counsel for the respondent – original petitioner.
3. At the outset, Mr. Supehia, learned counsel for the respondent herein reiterated the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Para 7 of the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by decision dated 25/03/2010, rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 262 of 2008 and connected matters, confirmed by Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 26/04/2011. Para 7 of the impugned judgment and order reads as under:
“7. Mr. Supehia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the said group of petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 262 of 2008 was heard along with other identical matters and this Hon'ble Court (Coram : M.R. Shah, J.) vide judgment and order dated 25.3.2010 was pleased to allow those petitions. Mr. Supehia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also pointed out that the aforesaid judgment and order came to be challenged by the respondent Board by way of filing intra court appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No. 515 of 2011 and allied matters. It appears that the said group of appeals came to be dismissed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram : V.M. Sahai and G.B.Shah, JJ.) vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2011. It is further pointed out that in fact the respondent Board challenged the orders passed in appeals before the Apex Court by way of SLP (Civil) Nos.2370323738 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 27.1.2012 was pleased to dismiss the said group of SLPs. Mr. Supehia therefore submitted that the issue involved in the present petitions of cancelling/withdrawing higher grade scale and recovery is concluded and the said judgment has become final. Mr. Supehia further submitted that even in these petitions the same ratio would apply and hence submitted that the petitions deserve to be allowed.” (emphasis supplied)
4. We have gone through the judgment and order impugned in this appeal and the documents produced on record. The law on the controversy involved in the case on hand is very much decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25/03/2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 262 of 2008. The said order had been challenged vide intra Court appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No. 515 of 2011 and allied matters, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench in which, we both were the members of the said bench. The present appellant had challenged the said order before the Apex Court by way of SLP (Civil) Nos. 23703 – 23738 of 2011 and vide order dated 27/01/2012, the said group was dismissed and thus, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the petition filed by the petitioner, based on the settled law, as discussed therein.
5. In above view of the matter, we do not find any merits in the present appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine along with Civil Application.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ]
[ G. B. Shah, J. ]
hiren