AJIT D PADIWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition, which was filed in the year 1994, by practicing advocate on the basis of the news paper report against the issuance of non bailable warrant against the high dignitaries of Maharashtra State by the Judicial Magistrate at Dakor alleging that in Dakor Court in District Kheda that the warrants are being issued against anyone and every one just for asking and all that has to be done is to file complaint of whatsoever nature. The petitioner late Shri Ajit D.Padiwal, a practicing advocate has while filing this public interest litigation annexed the copies of news paper reports published in daily Times of India from Ahmedabad dated 9.12.1994 as well as the Gujarati News paper "Gujarat Samachar" from Ahmedabad dated 8.12.1994 and other news papers cuttings published from Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Rajkot, namely, daily Lok Satha dated 8.12.1994. Relying upon the said news items, the petitioner had approached for seeking relief by way of filing petition under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India by joining State of Gujarat and Registrar of High Court of Gujarat and the Bar Council of Gujarat and prayed for directions, which reads in paragraph 13 as under:-

(2.) This petition is affirmed by late Shri Padiwal on 12.12.1994 and this petition was treated as public interest litigation. As transpired from the docket sheet, the matter was ordered to be circulated for admission before the court on 13.12.1994 as per direction of the learned Chief Justice Shri B.N.Kirpal and Justice A.N.Divecha and the Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice and Justice Divecha had issued notice which was made returnable on 20.12.1994 by permitting direct service. Unfortunately this petition though notified earlier for consideration before the Division Bench had remained pending till it was notified before us for consideration.

(3.) As the petition is filed as public interest litigation and the original petitioner Shri Padiwal had expired, who was practicing advocate of this court, we thought it fit to proceed further with the hearing of this petition without appointing any practicing advocate to represent the petitioner by appointing the advocate as amicus curiae as according to us if any appointment is being made as amicus curiae there will be a further delay for consideration. However, while hearing this petition we have requested Mr.S.N.Shelat, the learned Advocate General of this High Court to assist us in the matter in disposing of this public interest litigation. We had also heard Mr.Arun Oza, learned G.P., for the State of Gujarat and Mr.Pardiwala, learned advocate, who appeared for the High Court while Mr. Girish Bhatt, learned advocate, had appeared and represented Bar Council of Gujarat. Mr.S.V.Raju, learned advocate, appeared in view of the order passed earlier by the Division Bench in an application filed by Manhar Galani for joining party in this proceedings, though his request for joining party was rejected by the Division Bench earlier. At the fag end of hearing of this petition Mr.K.B. Anandjiwala has moved this court by filing application being Civil Application No.5683 of 2004 filed by Tarachand Manumal Lalwani of Dabhoi, who was the original complainant in a complaint filed against Manhar Galani and as per the said application Tarachand Lalwani has requested that he may be joined as one of the respondents in main Special Civil Application. Tarachand Lalwani had also alongwith the application annexed various documents, including the affidavit filed by Suman Tarachand Sindhi, wife of Tarachand, and the statement recorded by the police dated 25.2.2004 of Shri Bharatbhai Manilal Dave and the Special Criminal Application filed by Tarachand for seeking relief being Special Criminal Application No.132/2004.