LAWS(GJH)-2003-1-25

GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs. S S JAIN

Decided On January 28, 2003
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD, GANDHINAGAR Appellant
V/S
S.S.JAIN AND CO.(BOMBAY) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of Letters Patent Appeals, by invocation of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, common questions arise out of a common interlocutory order of the learned single Judge in a group of writ petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, they are being disposed of simultaneously by a common order after having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the appellants.

(2.) IN this group of Letters Patent Appeals, the central challenge in the focus has been the Circular dated 4-10-2002, issued by the Gujarat Maritime board ("g. M. B. " for short hereinafter) in respect of the allotment like exchange and amalgamation of the plots for the purpose of ship-breaking at Alang, the centre for ship-breaking which has acquired a global significance for variety of reasons and issued under Regulation 4 (c) of (Gujarat Maritime Board conditions and Procedures for Granting Permission for Utilising Ship-Breaking plots) Regulation, 1994 (hereinafter be referred to as "regulation" ). Appellant g. M. B. has assailed, in each petition, the direction to the extent contained in first Part in Clause (iii) of Para 17 of the impugned common interlocutory order contending that the said direction may also partake the effect of compulsory holding an exercise, for allotment of 50% of the available plots by adopting the process of tender-cum-auction which has never been the case from inception.

(3.) IN short, in substance, the group of L. P. As. , at the instance of G. M. B. is for a limited purpose questioning the supposed and assumed legal frame and mechanism of the said part of clause (iii) of Para 17 of the impugned interlocutory order, whereas, in one L. P. A. No. 12 of 2003, the main relief sought in the petition has been against the implementation and execution of the aforesaid controversial circular, and it has been contended in this L. P. A. that the impugned interim order is not sustainable. Such a challenge will be considered hereinafter at the later stage, we first propose to consider merits of the group of 9 L. P. As. , at the instance of G. M. B.