Gujarat High Court
Chandanji Talaji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 2021
Bench: N.V.Anjaria, A.S. Supehia
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 632 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any No
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
CHANDANJI TALAJI THAKOR & 2 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,4
MR ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS WITH MR SIDDHARTH H DAVE(5306) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRAKASH JANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ARCHIT P JANI(7304)
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 22/01/2021
Page 1 of 19
Downloaded on : Sat Jan 23 00:21:09 IST 2021
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for
the appellants, learned senior advocate Mr.Prakash
Jani with learned advocate Mr.Archit Jani for
respondent No.3, learned advocate Mr.Devang Vyas
assisted by learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave for
respondent No.2 University and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah for r1 - State, at
length.
2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal
is addressed to judgment and order dated 18th January,
2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.632 of 2021, whereby the said petition
came to be dismissed for the reasons recorded in the
judgment. In the Special Civil Application,
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
was invoked by the petitioners seeking issuance of
writ to set aside Notification dated 04th January,
2021 of the respondent No.2 - Hemchandracharya North
Gujarat University. By the said Notification, the
election programme for election of two members in the
council of the University from the University Court,
also known as Senate, was declared. It was further
prayed to direct the University to hold such
elections only after vacant seats of the members to
the court are filled up.
3. The elections to the two members notified as
per the impugned notification is in view of the
provision of Section 19(1)(vii) of the
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act, 1986.
The Section provides that Executive Council shall be
the executive authority of the university and shall
consist of the members specified in Clause (i) to
Clause (ix). Clause (vii) provides about two persons
to be elected by the court from amongst its members
who are not teachers or members of the teaching staff
of the university, affiliated colleges, recognised
institutions and approved institutions and students.
Section 15 under Chapter IV of the Act mentioned the
authorities of the university. The 'court' is one of
the authorities of the court mentioned in the said
Section. Under Section 16, it is stated that the
'court' shall consist two classes. Class I ex officio
members and class II ordinary members elected as
specified in the provision of Section 16. Section 76
of the Act says that the proceedings shall not
invalidated by vacancies. It provides that no act or
proceeding of any authority or other body of the
University shall be invalidated merely by reason of
any vacancy in its membership. Another is Section 77
which is in relation to the disputes as to
constitution of University Authority or body.
4. The main premise and the contention on which
the grievance and the prayer in the petition are
rested are that the 'court' of the University which
would be the electoral body, has vacancies almost to
the extent of one-fourth of the total. It was to be
highlighted by learned advocate for the appellants
that out of the total strength of 100 members in the
'court', 23 seats are vacant. These 23 seats, it was
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
submitted, include the registered graduates of all
faculties of the University, members to be nominated
by the Panchayat and the Municipality etc. It was
submitted that furthermore, there was dispute about
the nomination of 17 students as well as Deans. With
reference to such aspects pleaded it was submitted
that the vacancies in the 'court' would result into
deprivation of participation in the election. It was
submitted that the membership of the court has been
kept cosmetic to suit the convenience by the
authorities. It was further submitted that in such a
situation the principle of votes by proportional
representation, which is to be the method for
electing would be adversely affected.
4.1 Learned advocate for the appellants further
submitted that despite the fact position that 23
seats in the 'court' are vacant, the University
proceeded to publish the election programme for
election of two members to the Executive Council.
Describing the election notification as an hurriedly
taken step, it was submitted that the term of the
Council is due to get over on 31st March, 2021 only.
It was in furtherance submitted that thus there was a
sufficient time to fill up the vacancies in the court
to include the member voters. Learned advocate for
the appellants took the Court through various
provisions in the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat
University Act, 1986 to submit that the present
elections may be stayed and the fresh elections may
be directed.
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
4.2 In response, learned advocate for respondent
No.2 University raised contentions on the basis of
the affidavit-in-reply dated 12th January, 2021 filed
by the In-charge Registrar. His preliminary
contention was that the appellants have got
alternative remedy under Section 77 of the North
Gujarat University Act, 1986. He inter alia also
submitted that the appellants-petitioners were aware
about the vacant seats since long, however chose to
raise such grievance only at the eleventh hour when
the elections were announced. Various other
contentions were also raised and it was submitted
that since the election process has started, learned
Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the
process to decline to the appellants to grant any
relief. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 also
referred to the provision of Section 76 of the
Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act, 1986
which provides that no act or proceeding of any
authority or other body of the University shall be
invalidated merely by reason of any vacancy in its
membership.
4.3 On behalf of the respondent No.2 University,
also pressed into service was the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Narhari H. Amin v.
Gujarat University [2013(1) GLR 430] to submit that
the ratio laid down therein provides answer to the
contention of the appellants. It was submitted that
the Court therein held in the context of provisions
of the Gujarat University Act, 1949 that dates of
elections of members of Senate cannot have in co-
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
relation to the elections of Executive Council; that
the plea on that ground to postpone the elections to
the Executive Council was negatived; that the
contention was also rejected that in absence of such
voters who are yet to be elected to the Senate,
election of Executive Council would in any way be
illegal or vitiated.
4.3.1 Learned advocate for respondent No.2 relied
on paragraph No.9 of the decision in Narhari H. Amin
(supra) to submit that the same may be applied on
merits to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal,
reading as under.
"9. It is quite clear from bare perusal of
section 19 of the Act that the Executive Council,
which is an important 'Authority' under section
15, has to consist of total 27 ex-officio elected
and nominated members and the term of the office
of the elected and nominated members is
restricted to three years without any provision
for any hiatus in the existence of the whole body
of persons which constitute the Executive
Council. Therefore, it is both mandatory and
obligatory to hold the election of members in
time and any discretion or power enjoyed by the
Vice Chancellor or Pro-Vice Chancellor under
Statute 138 for fixing the date of election
cannot legally be so exercised as to defer the
election indefinitely or on extraneous
consideration. Due to different terms of office
of the members of the Executive Council and the
University Court (Senate) the dates of election
of the members of Senate cannot have any co-
relation and, in fact, no legal provision or
precedent could be cited to support the argument
that unless and until election to the Senate, for
a small number of its members, could be held,
election to the Executive Council must be
postponed or that in absence of such voters who
are yet to be elected to the Senate, the election
of Executive Council would in any way be illegal
or vitiated. ... ... ... It being an implied statutory
duty of the University to hold election of the
Executive Council, to reconstitute that body as
soon as may be on expiry of the term of office of
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
the elected and nominated members, it is
necessary and in the interest of autonomy of the
University and for democratic and responsible
functioning of its executive authority that the
election is held at the earliest ... ... ..."
4.4 On behalf of the private respondent No.3,
learned senior counsel relied on affidavit-in-reply
filed by him, and in his submissions reflected on the
locus standi of the three appellants. He submitted
that the first petitioner who happens to be the
member of the legislative assembly, had filed his
nomination form to contest the election, which was
subsequently withdrawn by him. It was submitted that
his status as voter is not affected and therefore, he
has no serious grievance to ventilate. As regards
petitioner No.2, it was submitted that he is doctor
engaged in teaching in the government medical
college, therefore he being a teacher stands
disqualified to become member of Senate. About third
petitioner, it was stated that she is graduate but
not registered. It was therefore submitted that the
petition could not be maintainable at the instance of
any of the appellants and further that in any view,
no fundamental right of any of the appellants is
violated. He therefore submitted that on this ground
alone the petition is required to be dismissed.
4.4.1 Learned senior counsel next contended that
since the election notification is issued and the
election process has started, the Court may not
granted any relief. What was pressed into service was
decision in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami
(Moingiri Maharaj) Shahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], wherein
in the context of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 and the Elections to Committee
Rules, 1971 thereunder it was held that breach of or
non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rules
during preparation of electoral roll can be
challenged in the election petition under Section
144-T. It was held that where the election process
had commenced, the High Court rightly declined to
entertain the writ petition of the appellants seeking
setting aside of the elections.
4.5 Learned advocate for the appellants in his
rejoinder submits seriously sought to distinguish the
decision in Narhari H. Amin (supra). He submitted
that in the present case, vacancies are in large
number to the extent of one-fourth in the membership
of Senate which would certainly vitiate the election.
He also tried to submit that under the Gujarat
University Act, 1949, from amongst members of the
court, 13 are to be selected whereas under the
provisions of the North Gujarat University Act, only
two are to be the elected members. As regards the
relevance on Section 76, it was submitted on behalf
of learned advocate for the appellants that same
would not come into play as it is in the nature of
exception. It was submitted that the provision
relates to the act or proceeding by the university
and will not have any application in respect of the
legality or otherwise of the election.
5. While we have permitted respective learned
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
advocates to raise their contentions on merits, we
are not inclined to delve into the same for their
merits, much less to consider them, as we could
immediately notice Section 77 of the North Gujarat
University Act, which provision relates to the
dispute as to constitution of University Authority or
body.
5.1 Section 77 is as under.
"77. Where any question arises as to---
(1) the interpretation of any provision of this
Act, or of any Statute, Ordinance, Regulation or
Rule, or
(2) whether a person has been duly elected or
appointed as, or is entitled to be or ceases to
be entitled to be, a member of any authority or
other body of the University,
(a) if may be referred to the State Government if
it relates to a matter specified in clause (1),
and
(b) it shall be referred to the State Government
if---
(i) it relates to a matter specified in clause
(2), or
(ii) if twenty members of the Court so require,
irrespective of whether it relates to a matter
specified in clause (1) or clause (2); and
the State Government shall after making such
inquiry as it deems fit (including giving an
opportunity of being heard where necessary)
decide the question and its decision shall be
final."
5.2 Pari materia to above provision, stands
Section 58 in the Gujarat University Act, 1949. The
Supreme Court in Gujarat University v. Shri N.U.
Rajguru [AIR 1988 SC 666] held that challenge to
election of certain members to 'court' of Gujarat
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
University by way of writ petition was not
maintainable in view of mandatory provision of
Section 58 providing for reference of dispute
relating to election to any authority of university,
to the State Government. In Shri N.U. Rajguru (supra)
the teachers of the colleges affiliated to Gujarat
University challenged the election of certain members
to the court of the university by way of writ
petition. High Court set aside the election and
directed holding of fresh election. It was held that
the writ petition could not have been entertained in
view of mandatory provision of Section 58 of the Act.
5.2.1 What was held by the Apex Court in paragraph
No.5 of the judgment would apply in the present case
to bring into play the provision of Section 77 of the
Act.
"Under S. 58 of the Gujarat University Act if a
dispute arises with regard to the constitution of
any of the authorities of the University, it
should be referred to the State Government for
determining the same. It firstly provides that
where any question arises as to the
interpretation of any provision of the Act, or of
any Statute, Ordinance, Regulation or Rules, it
may be referred to the State Government.
Secondly, it lays down that if a question arises
whether a person had entitled to be or ceases to
be entitled to be, been duly elected or appointed
as, or is entitled to be or ceases to be entitled
to be, a member of any authority or other body of
the University, it shall be referred to the State
Government. S. 58(2)(a) provides that the dispute
relating to interpretation of any provision of
the Act or Statute, Ordinance, Regulation or
Rules may be referred to the Government while
claimant. (b) or sub-sec. (2) of S. 58 contains
a mandatory provision that if the dispute relates
to the question whether a person has been duly
elected or appointed to any authority of the
University such a dispute shall be referred to
the State Government. There is no option or
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
discretion. If such a dispute arises, it has to
be referred to the State Government for
determining the same. If 20 members of the Court
raise a dispute relating to a matter specified in
claimant. (I) or claimant. (II) of S. 58 it
shall be referred to the State Government for its
decision and such decision shall be final. By
enacting S. 58, the legislature has constituted a
forum for the determination of the disputes in
respect of matters specified therein. Since the
"Court" is an authority of the University as
declared by S. 15 of the Act, S. 58 provides an
effective remedy for challenging the election of
a member to the court of the University. Any
person aggrieved by the election of any manner to
the Court has right to challenge the same before
the State Government by raising a dispute in
accordance with S. 58." (para 5)
5.2.2 It was held that the High Court committed an
error in entertaining the writ petition and in
interfering with the election, observing further
thus.
"It is well settled that where a statute provides
for election to an office, or an authority or
institution and if it further provides a
machinery or forum for determination of dispute
arising out of election, the aggrieved person
should pursue his remedy before the forum
provided by the statute. While considering an
election dispute it must be kept in mind that the
right to vote, contest or dispute election is
neither a fundamental or common law right instead
it is a statutory right regulated by the
statutory provisions. It is not permissible to
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Art. 226 of the Constitution by-passing the
machinery designated by the Act for determination
of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy
provided by the statute must be followed before
the authority designated therein. But there may
be cases where exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the
alternative remedies." (Para 6)
5.3 Like Section 58 in the Gujarat University
Act and Section 77 in the North Gujarat University
Act, similar provision being Section 59 exists in the
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
Sardar Patel University Act. The Division Bench of
this Court in Bipinchandra Purshottamdas Patel v.
Sardar Patel University being Special Civil
Application No.18564 of 2011 decided on 03rd February,
2012 followed the principles.
5.4 The decision in Shri N.U. Rajguru (supra)
came to be followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Rajesh Mahendrabhai Joshi v. Bhavnagar
University [2004(4) GLR 3042]. Similar Section 67 of
the Bhavnagar University Act, 1978 was under
consideration before the Court. The Court stated,
"It could very well be visualized that the legislature
in its wisdom has evolved a separate mechanism for the
resolution and determination of the dispute in respect
of the matters specified therein. Since the "Court" is
authority of the University, as declared by the
provisions of Sec. 14, of the Bhavnagar University At,
Section 67 provides an effective remedy for
challenging the election of a member to the Court of
the University. In the present case, the claim of the
petitioners is that he is entitled to be member of
Court of the Bhavnagar University, as he has been
elected and secured majority votes. This fact
therefore, shall not fall within the ambit of the
Provision of Sec. 67 of the Bhavnagar University Act.
Any person aggrieved by the election of any manner to
the Court has right to challenge the same before the
State Government by raising a dispute in accordance
with law. Provisions of Section 67 which provides the
effective, expeditious remedy." (Para 13)
5.4.1 In Rajesh Mahendrabhai Joshi (supra), it was
the contention advanced by the said petitioner that
the petitioner was entitled to become member of
'court' of Bhavnagar University as he had been
elected and secured majority of votes and that the
said fact and aspect would not fall within the
provision of Section 67. The Court negatived the
contention to hold as above. It was further observed,
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
"Instead of raising the dispute, by way of reference,
before the State Government as contemplated by the
provisions of Section 67 of the Act, the petitioner
raised the challenge before this court under Article
226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the
petitioner ought to have raised the dispute for being
resolved before the appropriate forum, which is the
State Government, in view of clear provisions of
Sec.67 of the Bhavnagar University Act. He has,
therefore, to pursue his remedy before the appropriate
forum provided by the Statute. While considering an
election dispute, it may be kept in mind that right to
vote, contest or dispute relating to election is a
statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions
and dispute relating to election is not a fundamental
right. Obviously, therefore, Court at loath to permit
the party having statutory rights being infracted and
having mechanism in its redressal to invoke
extraordinary, plenary equitable, discretionary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
bypassing the statutory mechanism, provided for
meeting with such situations and contingencies for the
effective and speedy resolution of such dispute of
election matters. Therefore, we are of the clear
opinion that ordinarily, statutory mechanism provided
for evolvement of statutory rights must be followed
before the authority described therein or special
forum or mechanism provided for. ....." (Para 14)
5.5 In Prataprao Shankarrao Bhoite v. Vice
Chancellor being Special Civil Application No.1251 of
2017 decided on 07th February, 2017, the controversy
inter alia was that statute in the Maharaja Sayajirao
University Act permit persons to become voters and
cast vote in the senate election by donating a sum of
Rs.01.00 lakh, thereby becoming eligible to be
included in the donors' category of voters, who in
turn would elect amongst themselves two
representatives as the members of the senate. The
controversy was that, the petitioners complained that
respondent Nos.5 to 35 were wrongly included in the
list of donors and it was prayed to declare the
recognition of the said respondents as eligible
voters to be illegal and to strike-off their names
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
from the electoral roll. While dismissing the
petition, this Court noticed Section 60 of the
Maharaja Sayajirao University Act and holding that
the election related dispute was required to be
referred to, as provided in Section 60, to the State
Government. Said Section 60 is also pari materia to
the other Sections in the different University Acts
referred to above. The decision in Shri N.U. Rajguru
(supra) was also relied on in Prataprao Shankarrao
Bhoite (supra). The decision of the Single Judge
dismissing the petition, when carried in Letters
Patent Appeal No.215 of 2017, came to be confirmed by
the Division Bench.
6. In view of the above clear law enunciated by
the Apex Court in the context of controversy of
similar nature and applying the pari materia
provisions, the ratio would squarely apply to the
facts of the present case. At this stage, a
contention on behalf of the appellants, though
teethless, may be dealt with namely that if the
preparation of the electoral roll is illegal, then it
would not be the election dispute under Section 77 of
the Act. As could be easily gathered from the
language of the Section, it provides that where any
question arises as "whether a person has been duly
elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be or
ceases to be entitled to be, a member of any
authority or any other body of the university, such
question would fall within the provision and shall
have to be referred to and dealt with by the State
Government. For any election, preparation of the
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
electoral roll consist of eligible voters is a basic
exercise.
6.1 The preparation of electoral roll or the
voters' list of the eligible persons who would be the
persons entitled to vote and contest, is an integral
part of the election and the election process. The
allegations that list of voters is improper or
defective or is irregularly prepared or is illegal or
that the names of certain persons who may be the
eligible voters are missing from the list or that
some names are to e included or deleted, are indeed
something to be necessarily conceptualised in the
election and the election process. The word
"election", as it is well settled, connotes the
entire election process. It postulates and
encapsulates the entire range of steps in the process
starting from the list of voters which may be in
existence or which may be prepared till the
declaration of the result of the election. The
dispute in this regard is therefore an election
dispute or dispute relating to the election. The
dispute raised in the present petition therefore is
one to necessarily fall within the purview of Section
77 of the Act and the remedy provided therein.
6.2 Learned advocate for the appellants still
harped on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh [(1980)
4 SCC 211] to submit that the Supreme Court therein
expressed in favour of exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
alternative remedy to challenge the election being
available. When the said decision is closely looked
at, it clearly transpires, more particularly from
observations in paragraph No.18, that in that case,
the election tribunal was found to be incompetent to
declare the Proviso to Rule 3(j) of the Delhi Bar
Council Rules as ultra vires and it was observed that
alternative remedy provided in Rule 34(8) was no
remedy at all. Such is not at all the situation in
the present controversy. As we have held hereinabove,
the dispute and the nature of dispute raised in the
present petition partakes the character of election
dispute, which stands covered to be dealt with
properly under Section 77 of the North Gujarat
University Act.
7. Right from the decisions in N. Ponnuswami v.
Returning Officer [AIR 1952 SC 64] and in series of
decisions post-Ponnuswami, the Supreme Court has
reiterated the statement of law that once the
election process is underway, the High Court would be
very slow in exercising jurisdiction to interfere
with, interject or interpose with the elections. In
more recent decision in Shaji K. Joseph v. V.
Viswanath [(2016) 4 SCC 429], the principles were
underlined in the following words.
"Whenever the process of election starts,
normally courts should not interfere with the
process of election for the simple reason that if
the process of election is interfered with by the
courts, possibly no election would be completed
without the court's order. Very often, for
frivolous reasons candidates or others approach
the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed
by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
and in such a case the basic purpose of having
election and getting an elected body to run the
administration is frustrated. Therefore, all
disputes with regard to election should be dealt
with only after completion of the election. In
the present case, the High Court was not right in
interfering with the process of election
especially when the process of election had
started upon publication of the election
programme and more particularly when an
alternative statutory remedy was available to
Respondent 1 by way of referring the dispute to
the Central Government as per the provisions of
Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of
the Regulations." (Para 15)
7.1 It is fundamental that the elections are a
democratic process and further having regard to the
very nature of election disputes, unless there are
overriding aspect or circumstance, the writ remedy
would not be a proper remedy to interpose in the
election process or to set aside the election
process. The election disputes have to be addressed
in accordance with the remedy which may be provided
in the relevant statute governing the election.
Election disputes have to wait for their adjudication
till the elections are over. While in usual parlance,
the remedy to address the election disputes is termed
as an alternative remedy, when it comes to challenge
and grievance of disputes during and in the midst of
the election and election process, such remedy has to
turn out to, in all ordinary cases, be the only
remedy, as the writ court would desist itself from
exercising its jurisdiction.
8. Various other decisions which relate to the
similar principles, though cited before us but not
referred to hereinabove so as to not burden this
order, have been duly considered and discussed by
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
Learned Single Judge in supplying his own reasoning
to dismiss the petition. We are in agreement and
hereby endorse to the view taken by learned Single
Judge. Additionally and more particularly for the
reasons and discussion supplied in the present order,
we are of the confirm view that the prayer in the
Special Civil Application was not liable to be
granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The remedy
of the appellants has to be under Section 77 of the
Act.
9. We leave it open to the appellants to
approach the competent authority under Section 77 of
the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act,
1986 to raise their grievance after the elections are
over, if they so opt. In order that such remedy which
may be properly availed by the appellants as above,
we have not gone into nor have opined anything on the
merits of the case of the either side. Reference to
the rival contentions on merits by us in the present
order including the contention about the locus standi
of the appellants, shall not be treated as adversion
to or expression on merits.
10. We thus hold that Special Civil Application
No.632 of 2021 was properly dismissed by learned
Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal thereagainst
lacks merit. The same is hereby dismissed.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION
In view of dismissal of main Letters Patent
Appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the
C/LPA/101/2021 JUDGMENT
present Civil Application. The same is hereby
dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
ANUP
