Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd vs Bedi Gram Panchayat & 5 on 14 March, 2014

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd vs Bedi Gram Panchayat & 5 on 14 March, 2014

Bench: Sonia Gokani

     C/SCA/11491/2000                                     CAV JUDGMENT




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11491 of 2000
                                  With
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13250 of 2011
                                    In
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11491 of 2000


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :



HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD....Petitioner(s) Versus BEDI GRAM PANCHAYAT & 5....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:

MR NIRAV C THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAIMIN GANDHI, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3 M/S THAKKAR ASSOC., ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6 MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 Page 1 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT MS. SHIVANGI M RANA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 , 4 , 6 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 14/03/2014 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is a public limited company, having its office at Jamnagar, carrying out business of import of edible vegetable oil from outside India and sells the same in the State of Gujarat, as also in different parts of the country.

2. The petitioner was allotted sea area by the Gujarat Maritime Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for reclamation and development like a minor port situated at Rosy Pear, Bedi Port. After reclaiming the sea area, it developed the plot and constructed a captive jetty and storage tanks on the reclaimed plot. The business of the petitioner commenced in June, 1999. It is the say of the petitioner that some associate companies of the petitioner and some other Page 2 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT private companies after importing the Red Pamoline sunflower oil store the same in storage tanks and sell the same and even the Sales Tax is being paid for selling the same within the State and outside the State of Gujarat. It has also averred that the oil stored at the storage tanks is a transit oil meant only for onward despatch and the said despatch is made without making any change in the form of goods originally imported.

It is the say of the petitioner that edible oil so sold is not within the limits of Bedi Gram Panchayat and moreover, the jetty is not within the limits of Gram Panchayat, but is within the limits of the Board and, therefore, the respondent No.1Bedi Gram Panchayat has no authority to collect octroi on imported edible oil, which is only being passed through the limits of the Gram Panchayat as transit goods for onward despatch. It is further averred that the respondent No.1 is aware of the fact that this being transit goods, it had never demanded octroi from June, 1999 to September, 2000. However, vide its order dated November 01, 2000, it started Page 3 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT demanding the payment of octroi. The petitioner who carries out similar business at Kandala Port, no such demand is raised against the petitioner.

3. A representation was made to the respondent No.2 District Development Officer, who in turn communicated that the respondentauthority was within its right to levy octroi. However, since it did not contend as to whether Rosy Pear, Bedi Port of Jamnagar is situated within the Rosy Bedi Gram Panchayat area, it had urged that the levying of octroi was illegal. It further urged that the action on the part of the respondent to stop the movement of the lorry, tankers, etc. was also unlawful. It is further urged by the petitioner that such problem was faced by several other companies like Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Indian Potash Limited, etc. A Special Civil Suit was, therefore, preferred by the Indian Potash Ltd. being No.47 of 1998 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jamnagar, against the demand of octroi, where the Court held in favour of the said company, which was challenged before Page 4 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT this Court in Appeal From Order No.328 of 1998 and the Court remanded the matter to the respondent No.1 to lead evidence in support of the contentions raised by the said appellant. It is urged that the State of Gujarat was impleaded as a party, however, at no point of time, any notification is issued depicting that the port area or the area of the Board is within the limits of Bedi Gram Panchayat. It is further urged that the panchayat has no power or authority in respect of the port area as the port area does not form part of the revenue limit of panchayat. The Board is a statutory authority which is distinct and independent of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the Gram Panchayat cannot have any power of taxation in respect of the goods brought within the limits of the Board. Hence, present petition.

4. The respondent filed affidavitinreply contending inter alia that the alternative remedies are available to the petitioner. When a statutory alternative remedy available to the Page 5 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner, no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be preferred. 4.1 It is further contended that the petitioner is storing the entire quantity of edible oil imported in the tankers within the Bedi Gram Panchayat and the said oil is sold to different parties in different consignments as per the invoices. Hence, there are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under subsection (7) of section 200 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. 4.2 It is further contended that as per the provisions of Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the procedure and method of levy and collection of octroi by panchayat is prescribed in Rules 22 to 36A, which essentially take care of all the Page 6 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT contentions, according to the respondents, raised in the petition. As the petitioner has not made any declaration to the panchayat so far, and as also not deposited the amount which is mandatory under the Rules, the petitioner cannot be permitted to shortcircuit the entire route by resorting to the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the goods which are imported by the petitioner are first stored by the petitioner in the storage tanks and then they are sold to different parties and, therefore, it cannot challenge the demand of octroi by the Gram Panchayat.

5. Both the sides have been heard at length and both have very strenuously advanced their point of views. At the very outset, it is necessary to emphasise that the levy of octroi is abolished from July 01, 2006 and, therefore, levying of octroi duty in question will be from November, 2000 to June 30, 2006. The levy of octroi is on the use, consumption or sale of the goods within Page 7 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT the municipal limits. In the case of Kathiawar Industries Ltd. v. Jaffrabad Municipality, reported in AIR 1969 GUJARAT 344, the Apex Court has observed and held as under :

"7. In considering the meaning of the words "consumption" and "use" this Court observed in Burmah Shell case (supra) that the word 'consumption' in its primary sense means the act of consuming and in ordinary parlance means the use of an article in a way which destroys, wastes or uses up that article. But in some legal contexts, the word "consumption" has a wider meaning. It is not necessary that by the act of consumption the commodity must be destroyed or used up. In Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) (1961) 1 SCR 709 the question that arose was whether conversion of one commodity into another commercially different article would amount to consumption. The facts of the case were that tobacco was purchased and in the Bombay State the stem and dust from the tobacco was removed. It was contended that removing the stem and dust from the tobacco did not amount to consumption of tobacco or had the effect of converting Page 8 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT tobacco into an article commercially different. The court held that when the tobacco was delivered in the State of Bombay for the purpose of changing it into a commercially different article, viz., bidi patti, the delivery was for the purpose of consumption. This Court followed the decision in State of Travancore Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory 1954 SCR 53 wherein it was held that the raw cashew nuts were put through a process and new articles of commerce, namely cashew nut oil and edible cashew nut kernels were obtained. The Court expressed the view that the raw cashews nut is consumed in the process. On the facts the High Court found after referring to the different processes of baking or roasting shelling, pressing, pealing etc. that although most of the process is done by hand, part of it is also done mechanically by drums. Oil is extracted out of the outer shells as a result of roasting. After roasting the outer shells are broken and the nuts are obtained. The poison is eliminated by pealing off the inner skin. By this process of manufacture the respondents really consume the raw cashew and produce new commodities. This Court accepted this finding and observed at p. 113 that the Page 9 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT raw cashew nuts, after they reach the respondents, are put through a process and new articles of commerce, namely, cashew not oil and edible cashew nut kernels, are obtained. In Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. (supra) this Court gave the example of the process through which cotton is put through before ultimately the final product, the wearing apparel is consumed by men, women and children. The Court observed "But before cotton has become a wearing apparel, it passes, through the hands of different producers, each of whom adds some utility to the commodity received by him. There is first the act of ginning; ginned cotton is spun into yarn by the spinner; the spun yarn is woven into cloth by the weaver; the woven cloth is made into wearing apparel by the tailor." At each of these stages distinct utilities are produced and what is produced is at the next stage consumed. It is usual, and correct to speak of raw cotton being consumed in ginning.

8.Applying this test the conclusion is irresistible that when uncrushed salt is crushed in the factory it is commercially a different article and the uncrushed salt must be held to have been consumed. The word "use" is of wider import than Page 10 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT "consumption". It cannot be denied that the uncrushed salt has been used and by the user a new product, crushed salt has come into existence."

6. In the case of Baroda Municipal Corporation v. Hindustan Conductors (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in 1979 GLR 502, this Court has held and observed that once there is a power to levy octroi duty under the Municipal Corporation Act under any particular entry on a particular commodity, if levy is made under a different entry, nothing is wrong.

7. In the case of Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. v. Belgaum Borough Municipality, reported in AIR 1963 SC 906, wherein the Apex Court has examined in the taxing provisions the use of the words "use, consumption and sale."

8. The Apex Court in the case of M/s.Acqueous Victuals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1998 SC 2278, was considering the question of Page 11 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT levying of octroi duty on the goods imported within the municipal limits. It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant paragraph as under :

"16. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of this Court, therefore, sets at rest the controversy in the present case. If it is the case of the writ petitioner that during the relevant period from 1980 to 1987 it brought within the municipal limits of the four respondent Municipalities beverages packed in bottles and the bottles were not sold within the municipal limits and after the beverages were taken out of these bottles, these very bottles were returned to the petitioner and were taken back to Bareilly, then for claiming the refund of the octroi paid on the weight of these bottles during the relevant period when the consignments entered the municipal limits from time to time, the writ petitioner had to follow the procedure laid down by the Municipality concerned under its rules for refund of taxes and had to comply with the statutory gamut of these rules. It has also to show that the Page 12 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT burden of disputed octroi duty was borne by it and was not passed on to consumers of beverages contained in these bottles. In other words, it would not be guilty of unjust enrichment if refund was granted. If the refund claim on furnishing the relevant proofs was not ultimately granted, the remedy of appeal provided under the rules had to be followed."

9. The Apex Court in the very decision was considering the question that a commodity when is brought within the municipal limits for the purpose of use, it must repose in the municipal limits and shall not be taken out later on. If the contents of the bottle were consumed within the municipal limits and that the emptied containers were taken within the municipal limits, then also the trader will be entitled to claim proportionate income of the octroi duty assessed on the weight of such emptied containers, subject to showing that such burden of duty needs to have been passed on the customers or to anyone else. However, that requires investigation of facts by the authority Page 13 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT concerned whenever such refund is lodged.

10. In light of the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, it is the provision under the taxing statute that any commodity when enters the municipal limits is either used, consumed or sold within the municipal limits, the octroi duty is leviable on such commodity. Such proposition is not being disputed by the petitioner for being very fundamental and basic. The contentions raised by the petitioner are two folds namely that (1) The port where the goods are brought does not fall within the jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat and, therefore, no demand for octroi could be raised by this Panchayat and (2) without admitting on the issue of jurisdiction that the goods are brought within the Bedi Gram Panchayat, then also, neither the goods are used nor consumed nor sold within the jurisdiction or limits of the Panchayat and, therefore also, such levy is not permissible.

11. Taking the second issue first, it is the Page 14 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT case of the petitioner that the petitioner imports the edible vegetable oil from outside India and sells the same in the State of Gujarat and in different parts of India. It is the case of the petitioner that they are allotted sea area by the Board for reclamation and development of minor port and the petitioner has accordingly reclaimed such area and developed the port and reconstructed captive jetty and storage tankers on the reclaimed plot.

12. Whether the reclaimed plot and the area of captive jetty can be said to be falling within the municipal limits, since the allotment is by the Board, is a question which would be considered somewhat in detail after a while. However, at this juncture, the question that begs answer is whether the imported vegetable oil as per the say of the petitioner when is being sold in the State of Gujarat as also in different parts India, whether in fact there is a use, consumption and sale within the City of Jamnagar or not, is a question of fact. The goods since Page 15 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT are entering for the purpose of transportation, even if the view of the petitioner is accepted without any demeanour, then also, the onus is upon the petitioner to prove that the goods received at jetty are transported and continue to remain in transit within the city of Jamnagar. In other words, the goods whether are used, sold or consumed in the city or not, is the matter of inquiry and this Court is not required to enter into such disputed questions of facts. Once having received goods via sea route and the same are only transited from port area to other parts of the country without being used or sold or consumed in the city from where it is transited to other part of the States, the Bedi Gram Panchayat would lack territorial jurisdiction to levy octroi duty. It is for the concerned authority to be satisfied on requisite proof that it is simply a transit from port area to other parts of the country.

13. This exercise, in fact, can be undertaken on producing appropriate and relevant materials/ Page 16 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT documents by the petitioner before the authority concerned. If such inquiry culminates into conclusion that the goods simply are transited from port area to other parts of the country, the levy of octroi duty is not contemplated under the law. Such being the basic principle, this Court is sure that the same shall not be disregarded by the authority at the time of inquiry.

14. This brings this Court to the second issue in respect of territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat and whether such jurisdiction extends to port area. It is to be mentioned at the outset that a civil suit is pending before the Court of Civil Judge at Jamnagar. Initially, the trial Court had restrained the Bedi Gram Panchayat from realizing the octroi duty from the traders. When the appeal was preferred before the High Court, the matter was remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge directing him to decide as to whether the port area falls within the jurisdiction of the Bedi Gram Panchayat. It was required of the respondent Government to Page 17 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT take a decision and intimate the Court as to whether such port area falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat. The Development Commissioner was also directed to take decision by September 28, 2000. This Court vide order dated November 16, 2000 made a reference of Special Civil Application No.11494 of 1999, wherein on August 14, 2002, direction was issued to the Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat, to take decision and intimate the Court as to whether Bedi Gram Panchayat falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat. It was further directed therein to communicate such decision positively on or before November 14, 2000 and thereby, expedited the hearing of such application.

15. A declaration was also sought for from the petitioner in respect of the goods which were brought within the territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat and transited through Bedi Gram Panchayat and the octroi point and, accordingly, the petitioner had filed an Page 18 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT undertaking that in the event of the petitioner not succeeding in the present petition, it will pay necessary octroi on all the goods.

16. The District Development Officer vide its communication dated December 13, 1995 addressed to the Bedi Gram Panchayat pursuant to a query raised by the Bedi Gram Panchayat as to whether Rosy Bedi port area as per the notification dated August 26, 1976, falls under the revenue limits of Gram Panchayat or not. Vide order of the Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar dated January 22, 1994, Bedi Gram Panchayat is declared as Bedi Group Gram Panchayat. The reference is also necessary to be made to the order of the Revision dated March 18, 1999. The Revisional Authority opined and held that the Gram Panchayat has jurisdiction to levy octroi as the Bedi port falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat. On noticing various communications of the District Development Officer dated December 15, 1993 and November 10, 1995, the Board preferred an appeal before the Page 19 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT Appellate Committee under section 178 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act challenging the right of Bedi Gram Panchayat to recover the octroi on essential goods and other goods entering Bedi Gram Panchayat. On a challenge that the panchayat is not given the right to collect the octroi duty on the goods entering through the Bedi port, it was argued for and on behalf of the appellant Board that the unit of the Board is owned by the Government. It would receive exemption under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and Fees Rules for being an autonomous body and the Board does not fall within the octroi limits of Bedi Gram Panchayat nor would the Rosy port be included in such limit.

17. As against that, the case of Bedi Gram Panchayat is that the Board would not fall under the definition of State nor would it be considered as an autonomous body and the limits are not decided under the Port Act and the octroi limit has nothing to do with such port limit. The octroi would be levied on the goods which are Page 20 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT entering into the territorial jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat.

18. The Appellate Committee concluded that the Bedi Gram Panchayat followed the requisite procedure for collection octroi as prescribed under the law and the Board is not entitled to any exemption from payment of octroi under Rule 36(1) of the said Rules.

19. In the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Nadiad Nagar Palika and another, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1223, this Court has held that mere physical entry of the goods in the octroi limit would not mean that the goods are brought for use, consumption or use. Use and consumption would involve conversion of the commodity into a different commercial commodity by subjecting it to some process.

"14. Situated thus, we hold that mere physical entry of goods into the octroi limits would not attract levy of octroi unless goods are brought in for use or consumption or sale. Use and consumption would involve conversion of the commodity Page 21 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT into a different commercial commodity by subjecting it to some processing.

15. In this appeal, cloth pieces of 100 meters length were brought within the octroi limits and those cloth pieces were cut into smaller pieces of different sizes. By doing so, no different commercial commodity is shown to have been produced, so it cannot be said that there was use or consumption of the cloth within the octroi limits. Therefore, we hold that no octroi is leviable on the cloth pieces of 100 meters length brought by the appellant within the octroi limits of Nadiad town.

16. In M/s. Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. (AIR 1961 SC 213) (supra) while giving the above illustration of use of cotton, this Court noted that after each state some utility to the commodity was put in. Relying on the said observation, the High Court took the view that when the cloth pieces of 100 meters length were cut to smaller pieces, some utility was added as cutting was done to meet the requirement of excise rules and demands of consumers. We hold that the High Court erred in coming to the above conclusion inasmuch as it ignored the fact that due to above cutting of the cloth, no different commercial commodity was shown to have been produced.

17. We may refer to decision in HMM Limited v. Administrator, I Bangalore City Corporation (1989) 4 SCC 640 : (AIR 1990 SC

47). The facts were that "Horlicks" milkfood powder was brought into the octroi limits in bulk containers (large steel drums) and packed at the packing station in unit containers (glass bottles) and thereafter exported outside those limits. On the above facts, this Court held that in the process of putting powder from drums to the bottles for the purpose of exporting or taking out of the municipal limits, the Horlicks powder Page 22 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT was neither used nor consumed and, therefore, octroi could not be levied or collected. While applying the above ratio to the facts of the present appeal, the High Court took the view that by putting Horlicks powder into bottles of different sizes no utility was added to the commodity but in the case in hand by cutting of the cloth pieces some utility was added to the cloth.

In our opinion, the High Court erred in coming to the above conclusion as by cutting of cloth into smaller pieces no commercially different article can be assumed to have been produced."

20. It is to be noticed at this stage that these decisions coupled with the notifications of the Government and subsequent developments and amendments go to suggest that the area in question falls within the limit of Rosy Bedi Gram Panchayat. The edible oil brought over from overseas to Bedi sea port through vessels is unloaded and stored in the storage tankers owned by the petitioner which is sold to different buyers and the goods are carried in trucks from such storage. It is not the case of the petitioner nor could it successfully prove that the area where the captive jetty is constructed is the area which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat. As noted Page 23 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT hereinabove in the appeal preferred by the Board, the Appellate Committee has held that Rule 36 of the Rules granting exemption to the autonomous body is not applicable in the case of the Board and, therefore, it can be deduced that the area where unloading, storing and loading in the trucks, etc. took place falls within the limit of Bedi Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the first question shall have to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

21. Accordingly, it is concluded as under :

(i) The area allotted by the Gujarat Maritime Board to the petitioner for reclamation and development, where the petitioner has constructed a captive jetty and storage tanks on the reclaimed plot, is the area which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the first challenge of the petitioner fails.

(ii) The second challenge of the petitioner, non entitlement of the Bedi Gram Panchayat of levying octroi on account of the fact that the goods are only on transit from port area to other parts of the country and are not being used, sold or consumed within the Page 24 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT territorial jurisdiction of Bedi Gram Panchayat, this being an issue deserving factual inquiry, this Court chooses not to delve into such an inquiry in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, following direction in relation to the second issue contended before the Court is issued as under :

(a) The petitioner shall adduce necessary evidences in support of his say that the goods imported in the form of edible oil or any other goods were only transported and, therefore, when in transit from port area to other parts of the country, the concerned authority on receiving such material within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, shall inquire into this aspect keeping the law in mind as discussed hereinabove.

(b) Such inquiry after availing due opportunity to both the sides shall be concluded.

(c) In the wake of undertaking furnished to this Court, the payment of necessary octroi if to be made, shall be made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks of conclusion of such inquiry. On its failure, the respondentauthority may recover the same in accordance with Page 25 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT law.

22. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13250 OF 2011 :

1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant, who has been granted right to collect Octroi on certain terms and conditions by Bedi Gram Panchayat by way of a Tender for the year 19992000, inter alia urging that as the report of the Government has finalised the fate of inquiry and as Bedi Port is situated within the limits of Bedi Gram Panchayat, the amount deposited by the petitioner, subject to the outcome of such inquiry, be permitted to be withdrawn by the applicant herein.

2. Subject to the outcome of the inquiry as has been directed while deciding the second issue in this petition, the fate of the claimant of the Civil Application shall depend upon only if any Page 26 of 27 C/SCA/11491/2000 CAV JUDGMENT entitlement of the Corporation is found to collect octroi duty on the strength of evidence as may be adduced by the petitioner. If such amount is to be paid by the petitioner in turn, the applicant shall be entitled in accordance with law and hence, no separate decision on the issue raised by the applicant in present Civil Application deserves adjudication. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 27 of 27

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court