DIGVIJAY CEMENT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Chudgar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petition was proposed to be withdrawn in view of the fact that initially the impugned order was stayed by the order dated 24. 9. 1992 with the clarification that the proceedings before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate under section 133 of Cr. P. C. was not stayed; but that proceeding is thereafter not taken to its logical conclusion. Learned A. P. P. submitted that due to reasons which could not be explained and possibly because of ignorance or non-communication of the above clarification, the original proceedings under section 133 of Cr. P. C. have remained pending with the Sub Divisional Magistrate and now, since the lapse has come to light, it may be concluded in accordance with law within a period of one month.

(2.) THEREFORE, learned counsel Mr. Chudgar requested that, without entering into the merits of the petition, the Court may permit conclusion of the original proceedings, while the injunction which has operated for all these 16 years may continue so as to avoid any complication. Learned A. P. P. having no objection, the petition is disposed as withdrawn and Rule is discharged with the clarification that the interim relief which has operated herein shall continue to operate till 31. 03. 2009 and, in the meantime, the original proceedings pending before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate under section 133 of Cr. P. C. shall be, with the co-operation of the petitioner, concluded on or before 16. 03. 2009. It was assured on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall fully co-operate in the earliest practicable conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings and will not take any unnecessary adjournment or otherwise cause delay in the conclusion of the proceedings.