Gujarat High Court
Oocl (India) Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & on 28 June, 2013
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
OOCL (INDIA) PVT LTD....Applicant(s)V/SUNION OF INDIA C/MCA/1042/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1042 of 2013 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14572 of 2012 =========================================================== OOCL (INDIA) PVT LTD....Applicant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 2....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR DAKSHESH MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PS CHAMPANERI, ADDL SOLICITOR GENERAL for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 28/06/2013 ORAL ORDER
When the application is called out, learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Solicitor General for the opponent are not present.
Earlier the applicant-petitioner had taken out a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.14572 of 2012. In the said petition, the the petitioner had prayed, inter alia, that:
11(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order direction the respondents to forthwith withdraw the arbitrary and highhanded notices dated 11.10.2012 at Annex. A (colly.);
After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent, below mentioned order was passed on 6.11.2012:
Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Mr. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, have, on instructions from competent authority, jointly submitted that the petitioner may provide relevant data regarding voyages and deck cargo for the period in question, within 15 days, after considering the said data, the concerned competent authority of the respondent shall issue appropriate show-cause notice and after considering the reply and after hearing the petitioner, the authority pass appropriate order in accordance with the applicable provisions. The said order dated 6.11.2012 further reads thus:
Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that he has been served with affidavit today and he needs time.
At the request of Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, hearing of present petition is adjourned.
S.O. to 26.11.2012.
In the meanwhile and before the next date of hearing, the petitioner may supply the relevant data, as required by the respondents.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) After the above mentioned order is dictated and before it could be signed, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, has, after receiving instructions from the petitioner in light of the above stated stipulation by respondents, submitted that the said course of action is acceptable to the petitioner.
Mr. Chmpaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Mr. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, have on instructions from competent authority, again submitted and clarified that until the aforesaid process is completed, i.e. after receiving the data from the petitioner, show-cause notice is issued and petitioner is heard and appropriate order in pursuance of such show-cause notice is passed, the two notices dated 11.10.2012 will not be pressed into service and will not be acted upon. It is also submitted and clarified by Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, and Mr. Ravani, learned advocate, that the authority will complete the process in 4 weeks after receiving details, however, if the petitioner fails to and/or does not provide the data, then, the respondent will proceed further in accordance with law.
In view of the said stipulation made by Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Mr. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, upon instructions from Mr. Anthony Bellil, Managing Director, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner does not press the petition, at this stage, and the petitioner will provide relevant data, as asked for by the respondents, within 20 days and thereafter, the respondents may act, in accordance with the stipulation made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
In light of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the contesting parties, the petition is disposed of, at this stage. The parties will abide by the stipulation made before this Court. Notice is discharged.
According to the said order, the competent authority was expected to complete the process in four weeks after receiving relevant details from the petitioner.
Now the applicant has come out with present application and has prayed, inter alia, that:
11(B) The respondent authorities may be directed to make a demand note for final and final amount of Rs.9,95,980/- under the provisions of Lighthouse Act, 1927;
I have examined the application and the annexures and have also taken into account order dated 6.11.2012.
As can be seen from the order dated 6.11.2012, the petition was disposed of in view of the stipulations made by the learned counsel for the respondent and also by the petitioner. Hence, at this stage and until, the competent authority decides the issue in furtherance of the said order dated 6.11.2012 and passes appropriate order in furtherance of the said order, any other direction at this stage cannot be passed, otherwise it would amount to pre-empting the decision of the competent authority and/or granting present application and the relief which was prayed for by the petitioner-applicant in the petition. Furthermore, as and when the competent authority decides the matter and passes appropriate order if the applicant is not satisfied with the said decision and it has any grievance, then the applicant can take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against such decision. However, when the said order dated 6.11.2012 was passed in view of and on the basis of the stipulations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, i.e. present applicant and the opponent, at this stage, the request as prayed for in present application cannot be granted.
Therefore, at this stage, the present application is not entertained and accordingly disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat Page 4 of 4