Title: Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 19 January, 2017

Gujarat High Court
Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 19 January, 2017
Author:
R.M.Chhaya
Bench:
R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/1854/2015                                             ORDER




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 1854 of 2015

         ==========================================================
                  DHARAMRAJ BHANUSHANKAR DAVE....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT  &  5....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR. RAJ A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
         MR JANAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         LAW OFFICER BRANCH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR DEVANG VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ­ 4
         MR HARDIK P MODH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6
         MR HEMANG M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR NIKUNT K RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3­4
         NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
          
                                     Date : 19/01/2017
          
                                        ORAL ORDER
1. Heard   Mr.Raj   Trivedi,   learned   advocate   for   the 
                petitioner,   Mr.Janak   Raval,   learned   AGP   For 
                respondent   no.1,   Mr.   Hemang   M.Shah,   learned 
                advocate for respondent no.2, Mr.Nikunt K. Raval, 
                learned advocate for respondents no.3 and 4 and 
                Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate for respondent 
                no.6.
2. By way of this petition under
Article 226
of the 
                Constitution,   the   petitioner   has   prayed   for   the 
                following main relief ­

                      "[B]   YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue  
                      an   appropriate   writ/order   or   direction   to 
                      the   respondents   to   as   to   enable   permanent
Page 1 of 6
HC-NIC                                  Page 1 of 6      Created On Tue Jan 24 00:32:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/1854/2015                                           ORDER
restrain   of   free   public   exhibition   of   the 
                 judgment   and   order   of   this   Hon'ble   Court 
                 dated   30.10.2007   passed   in   Criminal   Appeal 
                 No.1691 of 2005 over the internet caused by 
                 the Respondent No.5/6. "
3. The   record   of   the   petition   indicates   that   the 
           petitioner   was   accused   in   an   offence   registered 
           as   C.R.No.I­27/01   registered   at   Panchkoshi 
           Division   A   Police   Station,   Jamnagar   for   alleged 
           offences under
Sections 34
,
120B
,
201
,
302
,
364
,
404
of   the   Indian   Penal   Code.     The   record 
           indicates that prosecution was launched, charge­
           sheet was filed and the case was committed to the 
           learned Sessions Court, Jamnagar which came to be 
           registered as Sessions Case No.82/01.  At the end 
           of   the   trial,   by   a   judgment   and   order   dated 
           19.11.2004, the petitioner came to be acquitted. 
           As   averred   in   the   petition,   the   judgment   was 
           challenged by the State before this Court being 
           Criminal   Appeal   no.1691/05   and   the   judgment   of 
           the   Sessions   Court   came   to   be   confirmed   by   the 
           Division   Bench   of   this   Court,   which   has   become 
           final.  It is the case of the petitioner that the 
           petitioner   wanted   to   migrate   to   Australia   and 
           when he undertook the procedure for the same, it 
           was found that respondent no.5 through respondent 
           no.6   had   published   the   said   judgement,   even 
           though   the   judgment   was   non­reportable.     It   is 
           the case of the petitioner that because of such 
           publication, the judgment is freely available on 
           the   internet   and   the   same   is   against   the
Page 2 of 6
HC-NIC                           Page 2 of 6      Created On Tue Jan 24 00:32:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/1854/2015                                           ORDER
classification made by this Court.  It is also a 
           matter of record that thereafter, the petitioner 
           approached   respondents   no.5   &   6   as   averred   in 
           para   3.7   of   the   petition.       However,   as   the 
           attempts   failed   for   deletion   of   the   same,   the 
           present petition is filed.
4. Mr.Raj   Trivedi,   learned   advocate   appearing   for 
           the petitioner has pressed the grounds which are 
           enumerated   in   para   4   of   the   petition   and   has 
           submitted   that   respondents   no.5   &   6   have   no 
           authority to publish an unreportable judgment. It 
           was   also   alleged   that   such   overzealous   act   of 
           respondent no.5 is nothing but indisciplined and 
           without any authority and the same has adversely 
           affected   the   personal   and   professional   life   of 
           the   petitioner.     It   was   also   contended   that 
           making   available   judicial   orders   of   several 
           courts   of   law   would   be   exclusive   domain   of   its 
           respective   Registrar   and   respondents   no.5   and   6 
           have   no   authority   to   publicly   exhibit   such 
           orders.     Mr.Raj   therefore   contended   that   the 
           petition deserves to be considered and allowed as 
           prayed for.
5. Mr.Nikunt   Raval,   learned   Central   Government 
           counsel   has   relied   upon   the   affidavit­in­reply 
           filed by the respondent no.3 authority and infact 
           has contended that respondent no.3 is not at all 
           a necessary party.
6. Mr.   Modh,   learned   counsel   appearing   for
Page 3 of 6
HC-NIC                           Page 3 of 6      Created On Tue Jan 24 00:32:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/1854/2015                                           ORDER
respondent   no.6   has   also   relied   upon   the 
           affidavit   filed   by   respondent   no.6   and   denying 
           the   contention   raised   by   the   petitioner,   also 
           contended   that   respondent   no.6   is   neither   a 
           proper nor necessary party and has also not given 
           the facility of engine.  Mr. Modh contended that 
           Google Search is an automated search engine which 
           uses   software   known   as   "crawlers"   to   crawl   the 
           internet on regular basis and find sites to add 
           to its index.   It was contended that respondent 
           no.6 is in no way connected with publication on 
           the   internet   and   is   not   in   a   position   both   as 
           legal and a technical matter to comply with any 
           of   the   orders   and   in   fact   submitted   that 
           respondent   no.6   is   appointed   as   reseller   of 
           advertising space on Google Inc's Adwords program 
           in India.
7. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for 
           the   parties,   it   deserves   to   be   noted   that   the 
           High Court is the Court of record.    Rule 151 of 
           the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 provides that 
           copies   of   documents   in   any   civil   or   criminal 
           proceeding   and   copies   of   judgment   of   the   High 
           Court can be given.  The said Rules also further 
           provides   that   copy   of   the   judgment   of   the   High 
           Court   shall   not   be   given   to   persons   other   than 
           parties   thereto   without   the   order   of   the 
           Assistant   Registrar.     An   application   for   copies 
           of documents or judgments made by third parties 
           shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the 
           grounds on which they are required, provided that
Page 4 of 6
HC-NIC                           Page 4 of 6      Created On Tue Jan 24 00:32:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/1854/2015                                          ORDER
such affidavit shall be dispensed with in case of 
           application made by or on behalf of the Union of 
           India   or   State   Government   or   the   Government   of 
           any foreign State.   The petitioner has not been 
           able   to   even   prima   facie   point   out   that 
           provisions   of   which   law   are   attracted   in   this 
           petition.  The petitioner has also not been able 
           to   point   out   any   provision   whereby   the 
           respondents no.5 and 6 can be restrained by this 
           Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226
of 
           the Constitution.  The prayers prayed for in this 
           petition   would   not   amount   to   any   violation   of
Article 21
of the Constitution as averred by the 
           petitioner.     The   judgment   in   appeal   is   part   of 
           the   proceedings   and   the   said   judgment   is 
           pronounced   by   this   Court   and   therefore,   merely 
           publishing   on   the   website   would   not   amount   to 
           same being reported as the word "reportable" used 
           for judgment is in relation to it being reported 
           in   law   reporter.     As   pointed   out   earlier,   even 
           under   the   relevant   High   Court   Rules,   a   third 
           party can get a copy of the said judgment.   In 
           light   of   the   aforesaid   therefore,   the   petition 
           deserves to be dismissed and no interference is 
           called   for   by   this   Court   in   exercise   of   its 
           extraordinary   jurisdiction   under
Article   226
of 
           the   Constitution.     It   would   be   open   for   the 
           petitioner   to   take   any   other   recourse,   if 
           available, in law.
8. The petition is disposed of.   Notice discharged.
Page 5 of 6
HC-NIC                          Page 5 of 6      Created On Tue Jan 24 00:32:36 IST 2017
C/SCA/1854/2015                                          ORDER
No costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) 
         bjoy
Page 6 of 6
HC-NIC                              Page 6 of 6      Created On Tue Jan 24 00:32:36 IST 2017