MCA/1981/2005 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT No. 1981 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8643 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ===================================================== 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 ? ===================================================== J K ADVERTISING THRO' NAYANKUMAR SHAH & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus HIGHLIGHT MEDIA COMMUNICATIONSPVT LTD. & 2 - Opponent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR JAL SOLI UNWALA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR TS NANAVATI for for Opponent(s) : 1, MR PR NANAVATI for Opponent(s) : 2, HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Opponent(s) : 3, ===================================================== MCA/1981/2005 2/6 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 19/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) The present petition is preferred by the petitioners for the alleged defiance and disobedience of the order dated 9.10.98 read with order dated 22.3.99 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998. 2. Heard Mr.Unwala for the applicants-petitioners and Mr.T.S.Nanavati for respondent No.1, Mr.P.R.Nanavati for respondent No.2 and Mr.Pandya for respondent No.3. 3. It appears that following position are undisputed :- (1)Subject matter of Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998 was the grant of contract to one Shital Corporation for placing of hoardings at Shivranjini Char Rasta and the basis of the petition was that AUDA could not have granted contract by private negotiations and ought to have followed the procedure of inviting tender MCA/1981/2005 3/6 JUDGMENT by giving opportunity to all interested parties. It is on account of the said subject matter of the petition, interim order came to be passed by this Court on 9.10.98 and subsequently confirmed. The order dated 9.10.98 reads as under: “Notice returnable on 16.10.98. Status quo with regard to awarding of contract of sign boards/arches and placement of such signboards/arches in question to be maintained till then.” The aforesaid order is confirmed by the subsequent order dated 22.3.99 passed by this Court in the said Special Civil Application. (2)AUDA has not granted contract to Shital Corporation which was one of the challenges in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998. (3)Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998 is still pending before the learned single Judge of this Court and final decision is yet not rendered in the said Special Civil Application. (4)As per AUDA, it has thereafter undertaken the process of inviting tenders. However, it is the contention of the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 that the process was not in a lawful manner and illegalities were committed even in the grant of contract by by-passing the MCA/1981/2005 4/6 JUDGMENT settled norms and therefore Special Civil Application Nos.16094 and 16096 of 2005 were preferred and in the said petitions, by the order dated 24.10.2005, learned single Judge of this Court restrained AUDA from allowing any further permission for placing of hoardings. (5)Out of the aforesaid two Special Civil Application Nos.16094 of 2005 and 16096 of 2005, L.P.A. came to be preferred being L.P.A. No.1672 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 1.2.2006 and the Division Bench of this Court made certain observations for reconsideration of the process and the procedure for giving contract for placement of hoardings by AUDA and in view of the said observations, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.16094 of 2005, who is petitioner No.1 in the present proceedings withdrew the Special Civil Application and as a consequence thereof it can be said that interim injunction in Special Civil Application No.16094 of 2005 did not remain in force. (6)No L.P.A. is preferred in Special Civil Application No.16096 of 2005, but the said order passed by the learned single Judge is not the basis of the present proceedings for contempt. 4. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it appears that, strictly speaking, as such the interim MCA/1981/2005 5/6 JUDGMENT order passed in Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998 can be read in the context to the subject matter of the petition which was for grant of contract to Shital Corporation and also for the manner and method of awarding of contract to the advertising company at that stage. If Shital Corporation has not been granted contract as recorded earlier, it cannot be said that any defiance is committed to the order of status quo with respect to the awarding of the contract which was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998. Even if the order is read in its wide term to the effect that AUDA could not grant any contract whatsoever nor could permit the placing of signboards/arches in question, then also, in view of the subsequent action undertaken by AUDA and such action being subject matter of the above referred Special Civil Application No.16094 of 2005 and the order passed by the LPA Bench, it can be said that the effect of the order dated 9.10.98 stood diluted to the effect of order passed by the LPA Bench. In any event basis of the present petition is not the non-compliance to observations of the LPA Bench. 5. Even though no LPA is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16096 of 2005, the observations made by the Division Bench in LPA No.1672 of 2005 in respect to the very subject matter and also in respect to the very common order in different MCA/1981/2005 6/6 JUDGMENT matter, would indirectly result into diluting the effect of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998. 6. Apart from the above, the main Special Civil Application is still pending before the learned single Judge of this Court and the petitioners, if so advised, may move appropriate application for modulating the relief in accordance with law. 7. It appears to us that in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998 and in view of the subsequent developments as referred to herein-above, it would be just and proper to drop the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act at this stage. Hence ordered accordingly. 8. It is clarified that any observations made herein-above shall not prejudice the rights of either sides in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.8643 of 1998 or Special Civil Application No.16096 of 2005 as the case may be. 9. Disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. (Jayant Patel, J.) Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)