DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main Criminal Revision Applications No. 83 and 230 of 1997, filed by the respective parties, have sought to challenge the same order dated 2.12.1996 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jam Khambhaliya made in Misc. Case No.4 of 1996 wherein, at the instance of the complainant namely, Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mithapur, a conditional order to remove the seals on the pipelines supplying water to the complainant, was made under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). After negotiations with the Government and execution of an agreement signed by General Manager of the original applicant company and the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Irrigation Division, Jamnagar for and on behalf of the State Government, that application is stated to have become redundant and/or infructuous. Learned counsel Mr Desai appearing for the company stated that, therefore, an application to that effect will be submitted by the original applicant so as to have the Misc. Case No.4 of 1996 disposed as not surviving.

(2.) LEARNED senior advocate Mr P.V. Hathi, appearing for the District Panchayat submitted that the original applicant had, under the impugned order, derived huge benefit without payment of necessary charges without complying with even those conditions of the impugned order which were not under challenge. He, therefore, submitted that the civil liability of the original applicant was required to be adjudicated and determined in appropriate proceedings and one of the proceedings in that regard was pending in this court in the form of Special Civil Application No.4109 of 1999. He, therefore, requested that it may be clarified that the conclusion of the present proceedings by virtue of the proposed withdrawal or disposal of the original application would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in respect of the civil liability of payment of charges.

(3.) LEARNED APP appearing for the State Government, submitted that, the present proceedings were not concerned with the civil liability of the original applicant and, in any case, the aforesaid agreement dated 7.5.2007 itself, by clause 23, stipulates that decision in the cases pending before this court shall be binding to the company.