Fuljibhai Ravjibhai Koli vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3612 Guj

        C/SCA/9662/2017                                     ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9662 of 2017

==========================================================
                  FULJIBHAI RAVJIBHAI KOLI & 2 other(s)
                                Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                            Date : 01/03/2021

                             ORAL ORDER

1. By this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant, original petitioners, have prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent collector to pass afresh order on application dated 28.06.2017 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the applicants and further be pleased to direct the respondent collector to consider the Government Resolutions dated 08.01.1980 as well 28.01.1998 while considering the case for regularization of the occupation of the applicants on the land in question.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the communication dated 28.08.2017 is not in consonance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court by way of order dated 06.06.2017 in SCA 9660 of 2017 and other allied matters and further be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

(C ) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s and/or order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

C/SCA/9662/2017 ORDER

2. I have heard Mr. Archit Jani, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, the learned AGP appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The applicants are seeking further directions in the matter over and above what has been observed in the order passed by this Court dated 6th June, 2017.

4. In a disposed of writ application, it is not permissible for the Writ Court to issue any further directions or pass any further orders in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 943, more particularly, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court as contained in Para-10 of the said judgment.. The same reads thus;

"The High Court's order is not. sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on 10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was ag- grieved by the notice dated 29.1.86 he could have filed a separate petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent's application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the

C/SCA/9662/2017 ORDER

proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. "

5. If the applicants are of the view that without seeking further directions, it is not possible to give meaningful effect to the order passed by this Court dated 6th June, 2017, then that would constitute a fresh cause of action for which the applicants may prefer a fresh writ application in accordance with law.

6. With the above observations, this Misc. Civil Application is disposed of.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)

Vahid