Heard Ms. Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the respondent No.1.
2. On 19.6.2012, after hearing learned counsel for the contesting parties, the petition came to be admitted. Subsequently, during the hearing of another petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No.18206 of 2011, involving similar issue, decision by Apex Court in the case between Chairman, M.P.Electricity Board & Ors. v. Shiv Narayan & Anr. dated 27.10.2005 in Civil Appeal No(s).1065 of 2000 was brought to the notice of the Court and a copy of the said decision came to be placed on record of the said Special Civil Application No.18206 of 2011.
In view of the said decision, the Court passed order dated 27.6.2012 in Special Civil Application No.18206 of 2011 observing, inter alia, that:-
"4. In the second session, papers of the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011 have been received from the registry. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that at the time of hearing of the said writ petition, the decision of the Apex Court (as referred to hereinabove), was neither referred to nor relied on by the respondent. The respondent has not filed any reply affidavit also in the said petition though notice was issued under order dated 16.12.2011 whereby notice was made returnable on 11.1.2012. Since, despite passage of almost 5 months respondent failed to file any reply and also since any submission relying on the decision of the Apex Court were not made, the order dated 19.6.2012 came to be passed in the said writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011. However, on consideration of the decision of the Apex Court, it prima facie appears that the issue raised by the petitioner in present petition as well as in the said other writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011 has been considered in the decision of the Apex Court, of course, if the respondent company can establish that the expression / words used in the relevant tariff entry prescribed in the tariff of the respondent company is similar to the expression / words used in the tariff entry of the appellant before the Apex Court.
4.1 If the two tariff entries are similar, then, the order admitting the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011 may have to be recalled and both the writ petitions may have to be taken up for further hearing in light of the decision of the Apex Court. However, such order, if necessary, will be passed after considering petitioner's submission.
4.2 So as to consider the aforesaid aspect and to grant time to the petitioner to consider the decision of Apex Court and also to enable the respondent company to place on record the relevant tariff entry, hearing of present writ petition is adjourned to 9.7.2012.
Office is directed to list present writ petition along with Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011 on 9.7.2012. The respondent in Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011 will do well to file reply in Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011.
S.O.
to 9.7.2012.
A copy of this order shall be placed on record of Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011."
3. Accordingly, present petition being Special Civil Application No.18007 of 2011 has been listed along with Special Civil Application Nos.18206 and 18207 of 2011. It is not in dispute that the issue involved in all the three petitions is similar. Therefore, at this stage, order dated 19.6.2012 admitting present petition is recalled and the office is directed to list all the three matters in Admission Board for admission hearing.
A copy of the said decision dated 27.10.2005 is supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner.
This order is passed after hearing the petitioner and having regard to the fact that learned advocate for the petitioner has very fairly not opposed this order.
4. Ms.
Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that she has been served with reply affidavit on 16.7.2012 and she needs time to take instructions from her client with regard to the details mentioned in the reply affidavit.
At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, the hearing is adjourned.
S.O. to 3.8.2012.
This order is passed after hearing Ms. Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner, with regard to the decision of the Apex Court, hereinabove referred to.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top