Gujarat High Court
Prakash Nambiar vs G. R. Aloria & 4 on 11 August, 2016
Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Supehia
C/CA/7146/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 7146 of 2016
In
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1972 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5263 of 2009
=========================================
PRAKASH NAMBIAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
G. R. ALORIA & 4....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT M PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KAMAL TRIVEDI ADVOATE GENERAL with Ms.Sangeeta Vishen, AGP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 11/08/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Present application has been preferred by the applicant herein original petitioner permitting him to join the authorities / persons mentioned in para 5A and 5 AA as respondent nos. 6 to 9 in main application.
2.0. Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and State Authorities and Shri Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation - Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation have requested that if this Court is inclined to allow the present application permitting the applicant to join the persons / authorities mentioned in para 5 A and 5AA, in that case, it may suitably be observed that as prior to they assuming their respective offices, they cannot be held liable for any inaction, if any, as alleged and that by allowing the present application Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Aug 13 03:28:22 IST 2016 C/CA/7146/2016 ORDER and permitting the present applicant to join them as party respondents, this Court has not issued notice for contempt against them and the said question be kept open.
3.0. Shri Amit Panchal, learned advocate for the applicant has stated at the bar that he has no objection if suitable observations are made, however according to him as there is continuing contempt, even newly added party also can be held responsible for contempt, however, for the period after they resume their respective offices.
4.0. In view of th above and in view of the subsequent development, without further expressing anything that proposed respondents can be said to have committed any contempt as alleged, present application is allowed by simply permitting the applicant herein - original petitioner to join respondents mentioned in para 5A and 5 AA of the prayer clause as party respondent nos. 6 to 9 in main application. However, it is made clear and observed that they cannot be held responsible for alleged inaction prior to they assume their offices. By permitting the applicant to join them as party respondent, it also may not be construed that this Court has issued notice upon them in the main proceedings for contempt and whether to issue notice upon them on the allegations of the applicant that even after they have assumed the respective offices, there is continuous contempt and / or disobedience of the order, are kept open, which can be considered on the next date of hearing and / or hereinafter. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/ (A. S. SUPEHIA, J.) Kaushik Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Aug 13 03:28:22 IST 2016