SHARAD BANSILAL VAKIL Vs. SANKALCHAND HIMATLAL SHETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a senior advocate ordinarily practising in this High Court and was at the material time the Senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government has filed this Writ Petition against the Chief Justice (respondent No. 3) two Judges (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) Registrar (respondent No. 4) and an Assistant Registrar (respondent No. 5) of this High Court. The petitioner challenges herein the order dated 16/07/1980 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on his application dated 30/06/1980 (Annexure A) and the consequential refusal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to give to the petitioner inspection and certified copies of the relevant extracts from the Minute-books of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as contrary to law ultra vires the respective powers and authority of the respondents illegal and void and liable to be quashed and set aside. The principal prayer in the petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction and/or order: (a) commanding the respondents or any one or more of them who have/has the custody of the Minute-books in which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 noted and recorded the submissions made at the Bar in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2881 to 2896 of 1979 to give to the petitioner inspection thereof (b) commanding respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to hand over and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to receive the custody of the said Minute-books and to preserve the same in safe custody (c) commanding the respondents or any one or more of them having the custody of the said Minute-books or either of them to give to the petitioner a certified copy of the notings and records of the submissions made at the Bar in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2881 to 2896 of 1979 made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and (d) permitting the petitioner to take photostats of the notings and records made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the said Minute-books of the submissions made at the Bar during the course of the hearing of Special Civil Applications Nos. 2881 to 2896 of 1979. In order to appreciate the circumstances giving rise to the writ petitions a few facts require to be briefly set out.

(2.) A group of writ petitions being Special Civil Applications Nos. 2881 to 2896 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the original writ petitions) were instituted in this High Court challenging the levy and collection of excise duty on certain goods under tariff item 68 in the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 The respondents in the said petitions were Union of India Collector of Central Excise Baroda Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Superintendent of Central Excise. The petitioner herein appeared in the original writ petitions for the said respondents as he was at the material time the Senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government. The original writ petitions came on for hearing before a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein and they were heard on 8/04/1980 By the oral judgment delivered on 11/04/1980 (Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India XXII G.L.R. 533) those writ petitions were allowed and it was declared that the goods in each case were exempt from the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944

(3.) The petitioner in his capacity as the Advocate for the respondents in the original writ petitions filed a note in the Registry on 28/04/1980 under Rule 2 of Chapter XI of the Bombay High Court Appellate SIde Rules 1960 (wrongly mentioned as Rule 139 of the Gujarat High Court Rules 1975 in the note and in the present petition). The note was addressed to the Registrar and the request was that the judgment dated 11/04/1980 rendered in the original writ petitions should be kept before the Court for speaking to the minutes. The note as required by the rule set out points on which it was necessary to speak to the minutes Two of those points briefly stated were: (1) that important points strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents were not considered in the judgment and that tariff items 40 and 47 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 which were not only referred to in the affidavit-in-reply but were also strenuously relied upon at the hearing were not considered nor referred to in the judgment (2) that a submission made at the Bar in regard to a special provision excluding the application of a general provision was not properly appreciated and that san incorrect statement was made in the judgment as to the content of the said submission.