(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) RULE.
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Soparkar appearing with learned advocate Mr.Bharat Rao for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.P.R.Nanavati for respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. Ms. Mehta for respondent No.2.
2. Since the petition is admitted, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar that if not more, at least the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Nanavati may be made absolute till final disposal of this petition.
2.1 Responding to the submission made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate Mr.Nanavati submitted that the statement was made in peculiar circumstances in respect of two plots, i.e. V-3 and V-8, which was then continued only in respect of Plot No.V-3 and during the pendency of this petition, he is not in a position to continue with the statement. So also, he objects to grant of any interim relief in the same nature, as according to him, it would be against the policy and it would lead to keeping one plot vacant unnecessarily hindering the business activities of respondent No.1.
3. Having regard to rival submissions, the challenge by the petitioner is to the interpretation of the policy of having reservation in allotment of plots, whether reservation should be effected in respect of number of plots or in respect of total area of land.
4. Since the challenge is to the interpretation of the policy and the suggested interpretation that it should be in terms of area of the land as against the words used in the policy "number of plots", in our view, it would not be appropriate to grant any interim relief, which would hinder the effective working of the policy as it exists to day. However, it would be appropriate to record that in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, following stand is taken in Paragraph 3;-
"The answering respondent submits that there is no violation of any right much less any fundamental rights of the petitioner. The true and correct facts are that, at present there are 20 vacant plots at Alang / Sosiya Shipbreaking yard and a policy decision has been taken to the effect that only 4 out of said 20 plots will be kept for general category, while rest 16 plots will be made available for SC/ST category."
5. This affidavit was filed on 18.7.2011 and this Court is informed that respondent No.1 has till date not given effect to the said policy decision. This Court would, therefore, expect respondent No.1 to act upon the policy decision, which was taken prior to filing of the affidavit, expeditiously, without treating pendency of this petition as stay/injunction.
[A.L.Dave,J.] [Mohinder Pal,J.]
-patel Top