1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of unsuccessful plaintiffs and is directed against judgment and order dated 16.09.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.117 of 2004 whereby, the Appellate Court dismissed the said Misc. Civil Appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs i.e. the petitioners herein, confirming the judgment and order dated 31.03.2004 passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara rejecting the application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 2004.
2. It transpires from the materials on record that the petitioners herein belong to the Machhi community. They are engaged in the business of plying boats on the bank of river Narmada, more particularly, in the areas of village Sinore- Chandod and Sishodara. Their only means of livelihood is to carry the passengers, who want to travel from one bank of the river to the other bank. Some time in the year 1991, the District Panchayat took decision to call for tenders from persons interested to ply such ferries or boats for the purpose of carrying the passengers. This was the subject matter of challenge by way of Civil Suit No.49 of 1991 preferred by two plaintiffs, who belonged to the same community. Undisputedly, the petitioners herein were not the original plaintiffs in the Civil Suit No.49 of 1991. The record reveals that Civil Suit No.49 of 1991 came to be decreed on 30.04.1993. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sinor allowed the suit and passed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Panchayat from interfering, in any manner, so far as the right to boats in river Narmada is concerned. Aggrieved by the said decree, the Panchayat preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.6 of 2000. It appears that during the pendency of the said appeal preferred by the Panchayat, there was a settlement arrived at and the appeal came to be withdrawn. Nothing is forthcoming from the record as to what were the terms of the settlement. Be that as it may, the chapter came to an end with the withdrawal of the appeal by the Panchayat. It appears that subsequently, once again, the District Panchayat proceeded to issue public notice calling for the tenders from the people interested to ply boats in the river Narmada for the purpose of transportation of the local people from one bank to the other bank. This public notice was issued on 29.02.2004. Aggrieved by this and making this as a fresh cause of action, the petitioners herein preferred Regular Civil Suit No.262 of 2004 for declaration and injunction that the defendant Panchayat has no right to issue such a public notice and call for the tenders as the Panchayat has already suffered decree of permanent injunction in the earlier round of proceedings. The petitioners herein- original plaintiffs, preferred application Exh.5 praying for injunction against the defendants restraining them from going ahead with the tender process. The learned Civil Judge, Vadodara vide order dated 31.03.2004, rejected application Exh.5 and refused to grant injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge refusing to grant injunction, Misc. Civil Appeal No.117 of 2004 was preferred. The Appellate Court vide order dated 16.09.2004, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting application Exh.5.
3. Against concurrent findings of the two Courts below, the petitioners-original plaintiffs have come up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Nilesh Pandya appearing for the petitioners – original plaintiffs and I have also heard learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh appearing for the respondents- original defendants.
5. Learned counsel Mr.Ramnandan Singh, appearing for the respondents-original defendants, made a statement that even if the order of status quo which was granted earlier, way back in the year 2004 is vacated as on today, the petitioners, who are plying their boats as on today will not be restrained in any manner and they will be permitted to continue with their business. He clarified that all they want to do is to invite the bids from the interested parties and whoever is a highest bidder, will be given contract to ply the boats. This is suggestive of the fact that over and above the persons like the present petitioners, other persons will also join in the business of plying boats in river Narmada from one bank to the other bank.
6. Having gone through both the orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out by the petitioners for interference. At this stage, if I enter into the merits of the contentions as canvassed, it is very likely that it will cause grave prejudice to both the parties so far as the main suit is concerned. Therefore, Mr.Pandya has also agreed that the reasons may not be assigned but at the same time, the interest of the petitioners be also protected. In view of the statement which has been made by Mr.Singh on behalf of Panchayat, the problem is taken care of. In view of the fact that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below, I do not deem fit to interfere in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is rejected and the interim order which was passed earlier stands vacated. It is clarified that in view of the statement made by Mr.Ramnandan Singh, it would be open for the Panchayat to go ahead with the tender process but at the same time, the petitioners will not be restrained, in any manner, from plying their respective boats. It is clarified that the respective rights of the parties shall be decided by the Civil Court without being prejudiced by the fact that this Court has not entertained this petition.
7. In view of the fact that the suit is of 2004, the Civil Court shall make all possible endeavours to see that the issues are framed at the earliest, if not framed, and the entire suit is disposed of by 31.05.2012. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated with necessary clarification.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Hitesh