STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DADABHAI HATHIBHAI CHITRASANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of preferring the present Civil Application, the applicants have prayed that the delay in filing the Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No. 301 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 20628 of 2005 for reviewing the order dated 11th October 2005 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 20628 of 2005, may be condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application in the interest of justice.

(2.) THE said substantive petition i. e. Special Civil Application No. 20628 of 2005 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11th October 2005, which is sought to be reviewed by way of captioned Misc. Civil Applicatio. The said petition was preferred by the State of Gujarat and other two officers of the State servingbanaskantha; and it was mainly prayed that : " (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of mandamus or order/direction or writ in the nature of appropriate writ and be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of Spl. Civil Suit No. 118 of 1994 and to quash and set aside the order below Exh. 125 dated 30. 06. 2005 passed by the Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha and further be pleased to declare it to be unconstitutional including in violation of constitution of India and allow the application at Exh. 125 and direct and order the transfer the case before Arbitration Tribunal. (C) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 30. 06. 2005 passed by the Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Palanpur in Spl. Civil Suit No. 118 of 1994 below Exh. 125, pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition. "

(3.) OF course, the applicants had mentioned in the said petition that the said petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but in sum and substance, the petition was found to be a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter was in reference to the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The say of the applicants was that though the Suit before the Civil Court was not maintainable ex-facie, a vital application going to the root of the sustainability of the Civil Suit i. e. application Exh. 125, was rejected and therefore, the said petition was filed before this Court.