You are on page 1of 4




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16500 of 2005 ======================================================== NILKANTH TULSIDAS BHATIA - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 7 - Respondent(s) ======================================================== Appearance : MR YF MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4,6 - 8. MS MEGHA JANI for Respondent(s) : 1, MR JITENDRA MALKAN for Respondent(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 4, 8, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 5, MR PRANIT K NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 7, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Date : 06/03/2006

ORAL ORDER 1. The papers are of the present from the Special Registry Civil today



pursuant to the note filed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Nanavati, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf respondent No.1 Railway Authority has submitted that there are certain averments in the note which are required to be controverted. It is required to be noted that this court is at present not considering averments in the









development which has taken place on and after 4th March, 2006 and even the learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has also conceded submitted that its Justice report U.C. to Banerjee the Committee has and


considering the fact that the date for pronouncement is 7th March, 2006, no further damage is caused and therefore the present petition is taken up for some interim order till the order is pronounced tomorrow.


It is very sorry state of affairs that when the passed by the learned Single Judge of this


court on 21-10-2005 by which the learned Single Judge has observed up by that the if the proceedings and the are further is




submitted, the same should not be implemented without the prior permission of this court, is in-existence and is continued with the consent of parties till the date and considering the fact that the matter came to be admitted on 21th February, 2006 and the parties were heard at length qua interim relief on that date and the date for pronouncement of the interim order




is fixed on 7th March, 2006 till 7th March, has 2006, it

and even without waiting is reported report. that Not the only




submitted its report but even the findings are made known to the public. The committee could have waited till 7th March, 2006 and/or sought the permission of this Court before submitting the report. However,

this court is not interested in knowing the reasons which compelled the committee to all of sudden submit the report on 4th March, 2006 and that too without intimating this Court when the matter is kept for pronouncement of order on 7th March, 2006 and more particularly when the committee itself is a party to the present proceedings. Whatever, the damage is

required to be caused to the affected parties as well as to this institution, it is also caused. However, to see that further damage is not caused and till this court finally pronounces the order on interim order on 7th March, 2006, at least, some relief is required to be passed. ad-interim Under the

circumstances, till 8th March, 2006, by way of adinterim relief it is directed to all concerned and the respondents that the report submitted by the




Justice U.C. Banerjee Committee shall not be further acted upon in any manner whatsoever by anybody till 8th March, 2006. Shri Nanavati, learned senior

advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 is requested to communicate this order to the concerned authority immediately.

Direct Service is permitted today. It will be open to the petitioner to serve the present order to the concerned respondents by Fax also at their costs.

(M.R.SHAH,J.) Shekhar/-