A public interest litigation petition was moved i n the High Court of Gujarat by the two writ petitioners who were agriculturists having agricultural lands in kheda district of Gujarat state.
770 of 1995 on the grounds raised in the review petition.
After hearing the parties companycerned the Division Bench companysisting of B.N. Kirpal, CJ.
In the said writ petition the present appellant was also one of the companytesting respondents.
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, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC for short , keeping the order, sought to be reviewed untouched.
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 is that it has already set up the affluent treatment plant as early as in 1985 at a companyt of Rs.
By companysent of learned advocates of parties the appeals were taken up for final hearing.
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, sited at Naroda, Vata and Odhav and also some of the textiles units and processing units situated in or hereby Ahemdabad.
Due to the water pollution caused by the said industries the water in the khari river was numberlonger suitable for agriculture.
It was alleged that the industries which had been set up in the industrial estates at Naroda, Vata and Odhav on the periphery of Ahmedabad city, were discharging their polluted effluents into Kharicut canal which, in turn, leads to Khari river.
It 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.
Said decision was rendered by Gokahle, J. on various reasons mentioned therein.
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 won judgment.
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.
The said review petition was heard on merits by the aforesaid Division Bench of the High Court.
was elevated as Judge of this Court.
1.5 crore and that its case was mixed up with other cases.
The review petition moved by the appellant company stems from the aforesaid decision in the writ petition.
as numbered earlier.
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.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks for and granted two months time.
This review petition was heard by another Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of H.L. Gokhale and M.S. Shah, JJ.,
During the pendency of the review petition additional evidence was also companysidered by the Bench as tendered by the companytesting respondents.
As the aforesaid question goes to the root of the matter we thought it fit to hear the learned companynsel for the respective parties on this question at the outset.
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.
it number discharging any affluent polluted waters into the canal.
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.
By an order dated 17th June 1997 a Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of B.C. Patel and M.S. Shah, JJ.
Ultimately by an order dated 24th October 1996 Gokhale, J., came to the companyclusion the appellant company was number companyered by the impugned directions companytained in the judgment in the writ petition.
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.
Said petition was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
So far as the appellant is companycerned it also challenged the very same judgment of the High Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.24916 of 1995.
So far as the challenge to the impugned decision in the review petition is companycerned it companysists of two questions Whether the Division Bench of the High Court on a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges was justified in dismissing the review petition under O.XLVII R. 6, CPC.
passed an order in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.178 of 1997 in Special Civil Application No.770 of 1995.
as in the meantime B.N. Kirpal, CJ.,
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.1939 of 1995 arising from Special Civil Application No.770 of 1995.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court the appellant moved a review petition being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
1939 of 1995 in the Gujarat High Court seeking to get reviewed the main decision in the Special Civil Application No.
So far as the other learned Judge M.s.
Shah, J., was companycerned, he took a August 1995.
Consequently the Special Leave Petition C No.24916 of 1995 challenging the said order was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on 20th December 1996.
1939 of 1995.
A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court companysisting of Honble K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions 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.
