SCA/3630/2001 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3630 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= SAURASHTRA EDUCATION FOUNDATION - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARIN P RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SHUKLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 12/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside SCA/3630/2001 2/5 JUDGMENT the action of respondent No.2 in proceeding to give away and grant administration of the Community Science Centre, Rajkot to any other non-governmental organization as per the decision contained in the advertisement dated 1.5.2001. It is also prayed by the petitioner to issue appropriate directions to respondent No.2 to continue the petitioner Trust in the administration of joint venture project set up as Community Science Centre at Rajkot. 2. It appears that this Court on 6.5.2002 had passed the following order:- “In pursuance of the notice issued by this court, learned advocate Shri A.K. Clerk has appeared for respondent No. 2. 2. Learned advocate Shri Clerk appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner has no legally subsisting right to continue to manage the science centre which is being run jointly by respondent No.2 Corporation, the petitioner and some other charitable institutions. It has been further submitted by him that some agreements have been entered into between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent corporation on the other. By virtue of the said agreements, which had been executed on 1st May 1997 and 29th October 1999, management of the science centre was handed over to the petitioner for a limited period. By efflux of time, the said agreement has come to an end and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to continue to remain in management of the science centre. Moreover, it has been submitted that the matter pertains to contractual rights of the parties which can be decided by a civil court and therefore this court should not entertain this petition. 3. I have heard the learned advocates and after hearing Sr. Advocate Shri Nanavati and learned advocate Shri Clerk, it appears that before the agreements referred to by learned advocate Shri Clerk had been executed, the Standing Committee of the respondent SCA/3630/2001 3/5 JUDGMENT Corporation had passed certain resolutions whereby it appears that the management of the science centre was to remain with the petitioner without any reference to the time-limit. Moreover, it also appears that the first MOU dated 4th July 1991 did not deal with any time limit and especially in view of the fact that the land, which has been used for the purpose of construction of planetarium, science centre, etc., belongs to the petitioner, prima facie it appears that ignoring the resolutions passed by the Standing Committee and the earlier agreement dated 4th July 1991, the respondent Corporation could not have invited applications from other charitable institutions for the purpose of management of the science centre. 4. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Government Pleader Shri A.D. Oza for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Shri A.K. Clerk for respondent No. 2. 5. So far as interim relief is concerned, after hearing the learned advocates, in my opinion, it would be just and proper for the respondent Corporation to consider all applications received by it with regard to management of the science centre. It has been submitted by Sr. Advocate Shri Nanavati that without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, the petitioner has already applied for management of the science centre. If the petitioner is selected for management of the science centre, the petitioner shall be permitted to manage the science centre, but if the petitioner is not selected, the decision shall not be implemented but shall be placed before this court so that further orders can be passed after knowing the final decision of the Corporation. It is clarified that the decision which might be taken by the Corporation would be subject to the result of this petition. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, hearing of this petition is ordered to be expedited.” 3. Therefore, this Court had given opportunity to the respondents to decide the applications of all concerned, but the implementation was stayed and the decision was to be subject to the further orders of this Court. 4. The learned AGP, Mr.Shukla appearing on behalf of the State Government, further submitted that the State Government thereafter has passed the SCA/3630/2001 4/5 JUDGMENT order dated 22.5.2003, whereby the State Government has ordered to continue the arrangement made with the same Trust i.e. Sargam Club and it is further observed that if required, the Corporation may take action as per the Resolution. 5. Mr.C.K.Dhivakaran, learned Counsel for Mr.Clerk for respondent Corporation declared before the Court that as per his instruction, Corporation has not passed any order thereafter. 6. In above view of the matter, as the Corporation has not taken any action pursuant to the Resolution passed by it and further as the State Government has also passed the above referred order dated 22.5.2003, it can be said that the challenge of the petitioner has become infructuous by afflux of time pending the development of the proceedings. Hence, the same is disposed of accordingly. However, it is clarified that in the event the Corporation decides to take any action pursuant to the resolution or to disturb the arrangement for running the Science Centre, the petitioner shall SCA/3630/2001 5/5 JUDGMENT be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. It is also clarified that as and when such dispute is raised by the petitioner, the rights and contentions of both the sides, including the Corporation shall remain open. 7. Disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 12.5.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod