AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE Vs. MEHER K. PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main issue that arises in this case is whether the High Court was justified in passing a drastic order in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India permitting the 1st and 2nd respondents (writ petitioners) to construct a compound wall under police protection. The order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 16/3/2022 is in terms of the "Minutes of Order" tendered to the Court by the advocates representing the parties duly signed by them. The practice of passing orders based on "Minutes of Order" submitted by the advocates representing the parties prevails perhaps only in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (for short, 'the Bombay High Court'). The present appellants applied for a review of the order dtd. 16/3/2022, which has been rejected by the impugned order dtd. 20/7/2023. Even the order dtd. 16/3/2022 is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) A few factual aspects will have to be noted. Arbitration Petitions were filed under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Arbitration Act') before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. One petition was filed by the 1st respondent against one Urvaksh Naval Hoyvoy and others. Taz Naval Nariman and another filed the other petition. Consent terms were filed in the Arbitration Petition preferred by the 1st respondent. It appears that during the pendency of the proceeding of the Arbitration Petition, Urvaksh Naval Hoyvoy was arrested by police based on a First Information Report. In terms of the consent terms dtd. 28/4/2018, the learned Single Judge passed an order dtd. 30/4/2018. Further, order dtd. 10/5/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge records that the process of handing over possession of the suit property by the respondents to the 1st respondent has commenced. The dispute in the Arbitration Petitions related to the lands of Parsi Dairy Farm.

(3.) The 7th respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 451 of 2018 filed an interim application in the disposed of Arbitration Petitions more than two years after filing consent terms. It records that the High Court had directed the police to give police protection to the parties for completing the process of handing over possession. A compound wall was to be constructed in terms of the consent terms. The occasion for filing the application arose as, according to the 7th respondent in the Arbitration Petition, local persons obstructed the work of the construction of the compound wall. The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court disposed of the interim application by his order dtd. 12/2/2021. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: