SCA/5104/2008 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5104 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= MAHESHKUMAR SHARMA DIRECTOR OFDEVSHREE SYNTEX PVT LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus COMPETENT OFFICER AND REGIONALMANAGER - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KASHYAP R JOSHI for Petitioner. MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 04/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Shri R.M.Chhaya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent- SCA/5104/2008 2/7 JUDGMENT Corporation. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner–original appellant has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.3.2008 passed below Exh.4 in Regular Civil Appeal No.203 of 2006 dismissing the injunction application during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal and vacating the order of status-quo regarding Plot No.2/1 of the petitioner. 3. That the petitioner herein-original appellant has taken on lease Plot No.2/1 situated in GIDC Bharuch from the respondent herein and the quarterly rent fixed at Rs.12,590/-. It appears that the frontage charges were also fixed. That thereafter proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 for non-payment of instalment and the lease rent. That an order came to SCA/5104/2008 3/7 JUDGMENT be passed against the petitioner by the competent authority as far as back on 30.9.2000 and the order for possession was passed. 3.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.203 of 2006. There was a delay which came to be condoned by the learned appellate court on condition to deposit Rs.56,466/- which came to be deposited by the petitioner. In the said appeal the petitioner preferred application Exh.4 injunction application restraining the respondent GIDC from taking the possession and/or sealing the factory and the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.6, Bharuch by impugned order dated 12.3.2008 dismissed the application Exh.4 and vacated the order of maintaining the status-quo. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri Kashyap R.Joshi, learned advocate SCA/5104/2008 4/7 JUDGMENT appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as the respondent GIDC has charged exorbitant interest and penal interest and when there are serious disputes with respect to the same, the learned appellate court ought to have allowed the application Exh.5 continuing the order of status-quo during the pendency of the appeal. It is further submitted that as such the petitioner has already deposited Rs.56,466/- with the District Court, and therefore as such, if during the pendency of the appeal, the order of status-quo is not continued, the appeal would become infructuous and therefore it is requested to allow the present petition. 5. Shri R.M.Chhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation has submitted that even the petitioner has also not paid the regular instalment, and apart from interest and/or penal interest, amount of Rs.1,77,329/- is due and payable and in all Rs.3,76,841/- is due and payable. Considering the above, when the learned appellate court has dismissed the application Exh.4 considering the interest of Corporation also, it cannot be said SCA/5104/2008 5/7 JUDGMENT that the learned appellate court has committed any error which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. It appears that, as per the GIDC, Rs.3,76,841/- is due and payable, out of which Rs.1,77,329/- towards instalment and total outstanding Rs.3,76,841/-. The dispute raised by the petitioner is with respect to the interest and delayed payment interest. However, it appears that delayed payment interest is taken as per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, there is no justification in the dispute raised by the petitioner. Now so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he has deposited Rs.56,466/- is concerned, it appears that the said amount is deposited by the petitioner which he was directed to deposit as a condition for condonation of delay. Still a sizeable amount is due SCA/5104/2008 6/7 JUDGMENT and payable by the petitioner. This Court also suggested that some amount be paid by the petitioner to show his bonafide and for rest a bank guarantee can be given, but the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has shown his inability to pay any sizeable reasonable amount. 8. Considering the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the GIDC and even the instalments are due and payable and considering the same when the learned appellate court has dismissed the injunction application Exh.4 for interim injunction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any error and/or any illegality. There is no jurisdictional error much less error of law committed by the learned appellate court while dismissing the application Exh.4 which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence there is no substance in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to SCA/5104/2008 7/7 JUDGMENT costs. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/