Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 188 (GUJ)

I. O. C. Ltd. v. Harivantbhai Champaklal Shelat

2001-03-15

A.K.TRIVEDI

body2001
A. K. TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. M. R. Bhatt for the applicant. Leave granted to the applicant to amend title cause so as to delete the opponent Nos. 4 and 5. Applicant to carry out the amendment forthwith. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. M. J. Shelat appearing for Advocate Mr. K. V. shelet waives service of rule on behalf of the opponent No. 1. Mr. K. T. Dave learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the opponent No. 2-State, the opponent No. 3-District magistrate, Ahmedabad and the opponent No. 6-Superintendent Central Jail, Sabarmati, ahmedabad. ( 2 ) THE applicant has prayed to clarify the order dated 13. 1. 2000 passed by this Court on Civil Application No. 69/2000 in Special Civil Application No. 10110/99. It is urged that said order does not cast compulsory obligation on the present applicant who was opponent No. 6 in the proceedings of Civil Application No. 69/2000 to inform or intimate the date and time of sample testing to the original opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 who are present opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 6. It is further prayed to order that Gujarat Refinery has fully complied with in letter and spirit the order dated 13. 1. 12000 of this Court and nothing otherwise was required in compliance of the order. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the present opponent No. 1 moved civil Application No. 69/2000 in the main matter being Special Civil Application No. 10110/99 with the following prayers :"4 (A ). Honourable Court be pleased to direct the IOC Laboratory, Gujarat Refinery, baroda to analyse the subject sample for its octane value (test) and to give report of such analysis immediately and the copy of the report be directed to be placed on the record of this case. 4 (B ). Be further pleased to direct the IOC, Laboratory Gujarat Refinery, Baroda to submit the subject sample analysis for octane value to the Secretary, advisory Board of State of Gujarat under PBM Act at 2, Sarvodaya Nagar, gujarat Housing Board, Sector 30, Gandhinagar 382030 as early as possible. "that on the basis of said application, after hearing the parties, this Court passed the order dated 13. 1. 2000, copy of which is produced at Annexure "2". ( 4 ) THAT pursuant to above stated order dt. 13. 1. "that on the basis of said application, after hearing the parties, this Court passed the order dated 13. 1. 2000, copy of which is produced at Annexure "2". ( 4 ) THAT pursuant to above stated order dt. 13. 1. 2000 the applicant carried out the test on 18. 1. 2000 and submitted the report directly to the Secretary, Advisory Board of the state of Gujarat under PBM Act through special messenger. That the above stated order dated 13. 1. 2000 was passed by this Court in the presence of learned AGP who represented the present opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. That 14. 1. 2000 was a public holiday and 15. 1. 2000 was a closed Saturday for administrative work of Department of the applicant and 16. 1. 2000 being Sunday was also a holiday, and as such, the applicant was served with a certified copy of the said order at 11. 15 a. m. on 17. 1. 2000 and on receipt of the same, the higher officials were intimated and on legal advice a decision was taken that as per the order dated 13. 1. 2001 though it was not obligatory for the applicant to inform/intimate the concerned parties but as a matter of abundant caution it was decided to send intimation to present opponent Nos. 2 and 3 regarding the time and date of the test by available effective mode, and as such, fax message was sent to the opponent Nos. 2 and 3. However, it could not be transmitted for non-availability of line, and thereby, message was put in the memory so that it could be transmitted as soon as the line is available. Mr. Bhatt has referred to the contents of a letter addressed by the Director, Civil supplies Department, Ahmedabad City to applicant dated 3. 2. 2000, copy of which is produced at Annexure "3" and has urged that the authorities are blaming the applicant for not giving intimation in advance to remain present during the testing of the sample despite directions given in the subject order. In order to explain the correct situation on interpretation of the order to the Civil Supplies Department and opponent No. 1 that it was not obligatory on the part of the applicant to give intimation in advance to the original opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (present opponent Nos. In order to explain the correct situation on interpretation of the order to the Civil Supplies Department and opponent No. 1 that it was not obligatory on the part of the applicant to give intimation in advance to the original opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (present opponent Nos. 2, 3 and 6), the present application is moved. ( 5 ) LEARNED AGP Mr. K. T. Dave has vehemently objected to the grant of relief by contending that as the main matter being Spl. Civil Application No. 10110/99 as well as civil Application No. 69/2000 are already disposed of, and as such, this Court now cannot pass any order by way of review or clarification as the Court has become functus officio. To support the submission Mr. K. T. Dave has referred to and relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors. , reported vide 2001 SCC (Cri.) 113. ( 6 ) PERUSAL of the order dated 13. 1. 2000 and particularly, the following statement made in last paragraph :". . . . . . THE representative of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, if so desire shall be at liberty to remain present when the subject test is being carried out by the respondent No. 6 after due intimation. "suggest that no clarification of the order as prayed vide Paragraph 11 (a) in the context of facts averred in the application is necessary as the order is very clear, unambiguous and conveys the clear meaning. It may be noted that at this stage of the dictation of the order, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in view of the above referred to observation made by this court in the order, the applicant does not press for the relief prayed vide Paragraph 11 (b ). ( 7 ) ON the basis of the foregoing discussion, it is held that subject to the observations made hereinabove, no clarification of the subject order is necessary as prayed by the applicant, and as such, the application stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. .