S.C. Agarwal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- order23. the learned advocate for the respondent prays for stay of operation of the order passed by this court today, with a view to go before the letters patent appeal bench. taking into consideration the question involved in this matter i am of the view that they must be given an opportunity to go before higher forum. i would, therefore, stay operation of the final order passed by this court, except stopping of payment to the extent of 40% because if that order is stayed than the very purpose of passing of order is likely to be frustrated. therefore, i stay operation of the order of this court, except stopping of payment to the extent of 40% till 10-2-1998. the order passed by this court to stop payment to the extent of 40% to respondent nos. 4 to 6 is to remain in force.24. mr. s.n. shelat, learned additional advocate general alongwith learned advocates for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 has appeared and he stated that he wants to file a review application before this court and therefore, the publicity of the judgment and final order in the matter be stayed till the consideration and decision of the said review application. he wanted to file such review application tomorrow itself, but this court is not available till reopening after the winter vacation. in these circumstances, 1 am of the view that the party should not suffer on account of the court's absence. learned advocate for the petitioner stated that no such prayer should be granted. however, he stated that the petitioner will not give any publication in respect of the judgment. in the interest of both the sides i direct the office not to issue either ordinary or certified copy of the judgment to any party till 17th january 1998 and it is further directed that the office will not permit any reporter to read and consider the said judgment for publication of the same till the said date. learned additional advocate general states that he will instruct the state government to abide by the orders and not to make payment to the extent of 40% of the amount to respondent nos. 4 to 6 as stated in the judgment till 17th january, 1988.

Judgment:
ORDER

23. The learned Advocate for the respondent prays for stay of operation of the order passed by This Court today, with a view to go before the Letters Patent Appeal Bench. Taking into consideration the question involved in this matter I am of the view that they must be given an opportunity to go before higher forum. I would, therefore, stay operation of the final order passed by This Court, except stopping of payment to the extent of 40% because if that order is stayed than the very purpose of passing of order is likely to be frustrated. Therefore, I stay operation of the order of This Court, except stopping of payment to the extent of 40% till 10-2-1998. The order passed by This Court to stop payment to the extent of 40% to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is to remain in force.

24. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Additional Advocate General alongwith learned Advocates for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has appeared and he stated that he wants to file a review application before This Court and therefore, the publicity of the judgment and final order in the matter be stayed till the consideration and decision of the said review application. He wanted to file such review application tomorrow itself, but This Court is not available till reopening after the winter vacation. In these circumstances, 1 am of the view that the party should not suffer on account of the Court's absence. Learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that no such prayer should be granted. However, he stated that the petitioner will not give any publication in respect of the judgment. In the interest of both the sides I direct the office not to issue either ordinary or certified copy of the judgment to any party till 17th January 1998 and it is further directed that the office will not permit any reporter to read and consider the said judgment for publication of the same till the said date. Learned Additional Advocate General states that he will instruct the State Government to abide by the orders and not to make payment to the extent of 40% of the amount to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as stated in the judgment till 17th January, 1988.