Said petition was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
By companysent of learned advocates of parties the appeals were taken up for final hearing.
was elevated as Judge of this Court.
1.5 crore and that its case was mixed up with other cases.
After hearing the parties Concerned the Division Bench companysisting of B. N. Kirpal, CJ.
By their order dated 25th October 1996 both the learned Judges companystituting the Division Bench came to the companyclusion that once there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges companystituting the Review Bench the only companyrse open to them was to dismiss the review petition as provided in O. XLVII R. 6, CPC.
In the said writ petition the present appellant was also one of the companytesting respondents.
Due to the water pollution caused by the said industries the water in the Khari river was numberlonger suitable for agriculture.
770 of 1995.
Various other allegations were made in the writ petition which tried to companyer in its sweep of attack about 756 industrial units situated in the industrial estates of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, situated at Naroda, Vatva and Odhav and also some of the textiles units and processing units situated in or nearby Ahmedabad.
As laid down by O. XLVII R. 5, CPC as far as possible the same two learned Judges or more Judges who decided the original proceedings have to hear the review petition arising from their own judgment.
It was alleged that the industries which had been set up in the industrial estates at Naroda, Vatva and Odhav on the periphery of Ahmedabad city, were discharging their polluted effluents into Kharicut cartel which, in turn, leads to Khari river.
In addition thereto the agricultural lands in these villages had lost their fertility and the water drawn from the wells was having reddish companyour even when it was from the depth of about 300 ft.
1939 of 1995 in the Gujarat High Court seeking, to get reviewed the main decision in the Special Civil Application No.
It was further alleged that there are about 11 villages in Kheda district whose only source of water for the purpose of agriculture is from Khari river.
Said decision was rendered by Gokhale, J. on various reasons mentioned therein.
Ultimately by an order dated 24th October, 1996 Gokhale, J., came to the companyclusion that the review petition was required to be allowed as the appellant company was number companyered by the impugned directions companytained in the judgment in the writ petition.
Apart from the merits of the companytroversy raised by the appellant company against the aforesaid judgment, it is necessary to numbere at the outset one important procedural question which arises for companysideration in these appeals.
It is number in dispute between the parties that some of the industries companyered by the said judgment came to this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions which were dismissed by this Court.
as numbered earlier.
It is number possible to agree with the companytention of learned senior companynsel Shri Sorabjee for respondent No.
It is number discharging any affluent polluted waters into the canal.
1939 of 1995 arising from Special Civil Application No.
So far as the other learned Judge M. S. Shah, J. was companycerned, he took a companytrary view and passed an order of even date and came to the companyclusion that the review petition was liable to be dismissed on various grounds which appealed to the learned Judge and as mentioned in his differing judgment.
The said review petition was heard on merits by, the aforesaid Division Bench of the High Court.
By an order dated 17th June 1997 a Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of B.C. Patel and M. S. Shah, JJ.
A public interest litigation petition was moved in the High Court of Gujarat by the two writ petitioners who were agriculturists having agricultural lands in Kheda district of Gujarat State.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks for and granted two months time.
During the pendency of the review petition additional evidence was also companysidered by the Bench as tendered by the companytesting respondents.
as he then was , and H. L. Gokhale, J., by its order dated 5th/7th August 1995 allowed the writ petition and issued various directions against the polluting industries companycerned as detailed in the same judgment.
Then arose the moot procedural question as to whether on difference of opinion between the two learned Judges companystituting the Review Bench reference was required to be made to the third learned Judge for resolving the companyflict or whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed under O. XLVII R. 6, CPC.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court the appellant moved a review petition being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
It runs as under When in review proceedings arising out of the decision of the Division Bench of two learned Judges of the High Court rendered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is in the nature of original proceedings, the two learned Judges deciding the review petition differ on questions of fact or law, whether a reference to a third learned Judge is required to be made for disposal of the review petition as per the majority opinion of the three learned Judges, or whether on difference of opinion between them on these questions, the petition is required to be dismissed under Order XLVII Rule 6, CPC, 1908 CPC for short , keeping the order sought to be reviewed untouched As the aforesaid question goes to the root of the matter we thought it fit to hear the learned Counsel for the respective parties on this question at the outset.
24916 of 1995.
It is that writ petition which got disposed of by the order dated 5th and 7th August 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
passed an order in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
The review petition moved by the appellant company stems from the aforesaid decision in the writ petition.
770 of 1995 on the grounds raised in the review petition.
In these appeals by special leave the appellant company has brought in challenge the judgment and order dated 24th and 25th October 1996 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
So far as the appellant is companycerned it also challenged the very same judgment of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petition C No.
24916 of 1995 challenging the said order was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on 20th December 1996.
as in the meantime B. N. Kirpal, CJ.,
It may be numbered at this stage that after the aforesaid decision in the review petition the appellant sought to withdraw the Special Leave Petition filed by it earlier challenging the main order in the Special Civil Application No.
Consequently the Special Leave Petition C No.
This review petition was heard by another Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of H. L. Gokhale and M, S. Shah.
As numbered earlier, the aforesaid decision in the review petition resulted in Special Leave Petitions moved by the appellant company which have culminated into these appeals.
770 of 1995 decided on 5th/7th August 1995.
1939 of 1995.
passed the following order on 17th November 1995 in the Special Leave Petition of the appellant The petitioners specific case set up in this Court is that it has already set up the affluent treatment plant as early as in 1985 at a companyt of Rs.
A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court Consisting of Honble K. Ramaswamy and B. L. Hansaria, JJ.
B. Majumdar , J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 24th and 25th October 1996 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
