JUDGMENT : RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. One Gujarat Wooden Industry, a registered partnership firm is before this Court complaining that respondent No. 1-GIDC is not acting in accordance with law and though there is no order, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, existing in eye of law, from any Court, the GIDC is not implementing its decision dated 8.12.2005, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E to the petition - page 20. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court by way of this petition playing second innings. Earlier, the petitioner had come to this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 935 of 2009 which was disposed of by this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice K.A. Puj) by order dated 4.2.2009. The Court was pleased to observe as under: “Having heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and having considered the averments made in the petition as well as draft amendment and having considered the documents attached therewith, the Court is of the view that since the representation is made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 Corporation only on 19.01.2009, which is under consideration by the Corporation, it is not just and proper for this Court to issue any direction at this stage except to direct the respondent No. 1 Corporation to decide the said representation as early as possible. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 has filed suit against the respondent No. 1 and if there is any grievance to the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 1 Corporation is not taking any action by virtue of the said suit and injunction order also indirectly affects the petitioner, the petitioner can move an appropriate application to be joined as a party in the said suit and make appropriate representation in the said suit. Even against the respondent No. 3, if any grievance is there, the petitioner can file separate suit against respondent No. 3. Since all these avenues are open for the petitioner, this Court is not entertaining this petition and if the petitioner so desirous, the petitioner can take all these appropriate actions available to him under the law.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Even against the respondent No. 3, if any grievance is there, the petitioner can file separate suit against respondent No. 3. Since all these avenues are open for the petitioner, this Court is not entertaining this petition and if the petitioner so desirous, the petitioner can take all these appropriate actions available to him under the law.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner did file an application in Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2007 filed in the Court of Honourable Principal Senior Civil Judge, Halol for being impleaded as party to the suit. Learned advocate for the petitioner says that, the said application was rejected by Halol Court. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, thereafter, the plaintiff of that suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2007) filed Misc. Civil Application No. 880 of 2010 before learned District Court, Panchmahals for transfer of Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2007 and the said application came to be allowed by learned Principal District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra by order dated 5.7.2010. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that now that suit has been transferred from Halol Court to the District Court, Panchmahals, the petitioner is rendered remediless in the matter of rejection of his application for being impleaded as party. Learned advocate for the petitioner also vehemently submitted that since the suit has been transferred from Halol Court to the District Court, Panchmahals, the orders issued by the Halol Court becomes nonest in the eye of law and, therefore, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, today, there is no order prohibiting respondent No. 1 herein- GIDC, from implementing its order dated 8.12.2005, still however, for the reasons best known to the GIDC, it is not implementing that order. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case which must be entertained by this Court as the GIDC is not discharging its duty which it is otherwise bound to discharge under the law. 4. The Court is not able to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case which must be entertained by this Court as the GIDC is not discharging its duty which it is otherwise bound to discharge under the law. 4. The Court is not able to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The Court does not agree to the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that once the suit filed before the Halol Court gets transferred to the District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, the petitioner is rendered remediless against rejection of his application for being impleaded as party to the suit. 4.1 The Court is also not able to accept the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that once the suit filed in the Court at Halol is transferred to the District Court, Pachmahals, all orders passed by the Halol Court come to an end automatically, meaning thereby, they became nonest in the eye of law. Taking these submissions into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is thoroughly misconceived and misdirected and hence, it deserves to be dismissed with costs. Filing of such petition, more particularly, seeking enforcement of order dated 8.12.2005 against which first representation was filed by the petitioner as is recorded by this Court in its order dated 4.2.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 935 of 2009 on 19.1.2009 is nothing but an exercise of twisting arm. 5. It will be appropriate to mention herein that learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner though titled as "Gujarat Wooden Industry" a registered partnership firm is operating "Weigh Bridge" and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also operating Weigh Bridge. From the aforesaid facts, it can be understood that the petitioner is aggrieved by the competitive activities of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was inquired from learned advocate as to under which provision of law, it is legal for the petitioner to operate Weigh Bridge and illegal for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to do the same thing. 5.1 Learned advocate could not explain the same. Instead of that, he invited attention of the Court to order dated 8.12.2005 wherein it is stated that, so far as respondent No. 2 herein is concerned, it was held by the GIDC that it is not lawful to operate Weigh Bridge. 2 and 3 to do the same thing. 5.1 Learned advocate could not explain the same. Instead of that, he invited attention of the Court to order dated 8.12.2005 wherein it is stated that, so far as respondent No. 2 herein is concerned, it was held by the GIDC that it is not lawful to operate Weigh Bridge. Be that as it may, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present petition is filed only with a view to ventilate the personal grievance and that too after waiting for long 4 years, i.e. after the order was passed by the GIDC on 8.12.2005, the first representation was filed by the petitioner on 19.1.2009. 6. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/-. It is clarified that deposit of this amount of costs with the Registry of this Court shall be condition precedent for filing any further proceedings before any Court including that of the District Court at Panchmahals. 7. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra to be kept on file of Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2007 filed in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Halol which is transferred to District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra by order dated 5.7.2010 in Misc. Civil Application No. 880 of 2010. Petition dismissed.