IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7777 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7834 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7835 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7737 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7738 of 2012 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/-
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH Sd/-
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 & 2 yes; 3 to 5 NO ========================================================= FRIENDS SALT WORK AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES THROUGH POA - & ORS - Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA & 3 - Respondents =========================================================
Appearance :
MR ASIM PANDYA for M/S HL PATEL ADVOCATES, MR VIRAL K SHAH for Petitioners MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent : 1, MR DD VYAS Sr Advocate and MR KM PATEL Sr Advocate with MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Respondent : 2-3 None for Respondents: 4.
========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 03/07/2012
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have been aggrieved by the orders of Estate Officer, authorized under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 [for short, 'the Act'], whereby the petitioners are held to be in unauthorized occupation of large premises specified in the orders. Admittedly, the petitioners have approached the court of learned Joint District Judge at Gandhidham (Kutch) by filing appeals and making applications therein for grant of interim relief staying operation of the orders of Estate Officer as aforesaid. In SCA Nos.7777 of 2012, 7834 of 2012 and 7835 of 2012, orders dated 08.06.2012 of learned Additional District Judge only issuing show cause notice below the application for interim relief are called into question before this court. In SCA Nos.7737 of 2012 and 7738 of 2012, the grievance of the petitioners is that hearing of the application for injunction, in the appeals preferred by the petitioners, is concluded but so far no order is made by learned Additional District Judge, even as next date for pronouncement of order is declared to be 07.07.2012. All these petitions, prima facie, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution have initially and properly been listed before learned single Judge, but afterwards have been tagged with LPA No.569 of 2012, for being connected matters. LPA No.569 of 2012 and a host of other LPAs of the same group have been heard and the judgment is reserved for consideration at present, without the appeals being admitted or any interim relief being granted. It may be pertinent to note that those LPAs are also filed by the petitioners of the present petitions along with other appellants and those appeals are arising from common oral order dated 27.02.2012 of learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the original petitions were admitted but interim relief were refused in view of the proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court by way of Public Interest Litigation (WP) No.11550 of 2009.
2. Even as learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel, appearing for respondent Kandla Port Trust ('KPT' for short), stated at the bar, on instructions, that possession of the premises in question is already taken over in all the matters, it was contended by learned counsel Mr.Asim Pandya and Mr.Viral K.Shah, appearing for the petitioners, that the possession stated to have been taken over by KPT is only by way of making a panchnama and the petitioners continued to be in occupation of the premises by virtue of their goods, equipments and erections remaining on the premises. It was, however, fairly conceded and could not be disputed that the term of lease agreements, by virtue of which the petitioners were in occupation of the premises, have since long expired and the petitioners were in possession of the premises since 01.04.2011 only on the basis of their claim for renewal of the lease or grant of fresh lease with retrospective effect. Therefore, in short, there was no dispute about the facts that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of public premises within the meaning and definition of the Act and the proceedings under the Act were initiated at the behest of judicial orders of the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid P.I.L.No.11550 of 2009. Under the circumstances, it was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioners that denial of any interim relief or ad-interim relief by learned Additional District Judge, Bhuj amounted to denial of protection and justice even as appeals of the petitioners were pending and required to be heard and disposed on merits. Relying upon judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Bhupatlal Govindji v. Bhanumati Dayalal [1983 G.L.H. 362], learned counsel Mr.Pandya submitted that whenever it appears to a court of law that a party is shrewd enough to over-reach the legal process, the court should put its foot down and see that this shrewdness does not stand rewarded. In other words, if necessary, the clock should be made to move back in order to restore the legal position which would have continued, had that party not taken benefit of that intervening period during which injunction did not operate. That legal proposition has, however, no application in the facts of the present case.
3. It may be pertinent to note that in the separate set of proceedings initiated by the petitioners, they have challenged decision dated 26.08.2011 of KPT, insofar as the leases of the petitioners were not renewed and possession of the leased lands was demanded. In that group of petitions, learned single Judge of this Court has, by order dated 27.02.2012, refused to grant interim relief and even in appeals preferred from that order, this Court has not granted any interim relief to the petitioners. Therefore, and in view of the successive interim orders of the Delhi High Court, more particularly orders dated 04.04.2011, 12.11.2011 and 16.05.2012, any attempt at thwarting the proceedings initiated under the Act would amount to directly or indirectly interfering with execution of the orders of the Delhi High Court which have not been interfered with by the Supreme Court when some of the orders were carried in appeal by some of the petitioners. On the other hand, the present set of petitions being primarily under Article 227 of the Constitution and no question of violation of any fundamental or legal right being involved, the scope of scrutiny by this Court is severely circumscribed. It was rightly pointed out by learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.Champaneri that, in absence of any jurisdictional error, this Court was not required to interfere with the exercise of or refusal to exercise the discretion by learned Additional District Judge. As held in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim [AIR 1984 SC 38], in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based.
4. Even otherwise, in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Court would not be justified at this stage in granting any of the reliefs as prayed so as to protect the alleged possession or occupation by the petitioners of the premises in question, while such alleged possession or occupation is, prima facie, illegal and in conflict with the judicial orders. As noted earlier, learned single Judge of this Court has, in the elaborate order dated 27.02.2012, already recorded tentative findings that leases of petitioners having already expired, no interim relief could be granted; and that order is operative till now despite pendency since March, 2012 of the appeals preferred therefrom. Therefore, the petitions are not required to be entertained and accordingly summarily dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(KMG Thilake) Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/ ( G.B.Shah, J.)