( 1 ) ). Heard Mr. P. R. Nanavaty, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent State. "the relief has to be granted by the Court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The Court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. While exercising the powers, the Court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fair play and should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum. "[extract : Vaish Degree College Vs. Laxminarayan reported in AIR 1976 SC page 888 ]"law cannot be interpreted and enforced divorced from their effect on human beings for whom the laws are meant. Undoubtedly, rule of law must prevail but as is often said, rule of law must run akin to rule of life. And life of law is not logic but experience. . While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable considerations and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. "[extract : Municipal Board, Pratapgadh Vs. M. S. Chawla reported in AIR 1982 SC page 1493 ]"article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary although founded on legal inquiry. It is perfectly open for the Court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects;`courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependant upon considerations as of public interest. "[ Extract : Shivshankar Dal Mill Vs. State of Hyryana reported in AIR 1980 SC page 1037 ]rule. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

( 2 ) ). THE brief facts of the present petition are as under :-ACCORDING to the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with the FIR being CR No. 40 of 2001 lodged before the Naranpura Police Station under Section 304, 120 B, 418, 420 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (c) (d), 7 (1) (i) (ii) (2) of the Gujarat Owners Flat Act, 1973. The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction and is one of the directors of M/s. Somnath Real Estate Private Ltd. which is a company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, under the aegis of the said Company, the petitioner constructed several residential as well as commercial complexes in the city of Ahmedabad in the last ten years. According to the petitioner, one of the buildings Shivalaya was constructed by the company of the petitioner in the year 1994 and one block out of two blocks collapsed due to the earthquake which hit the city of Ahmedabad on 26. 1. 2001 and due to the collapse of one block of the said building, one old lady lost her life. Therefore, one Naresh Chimanlal Oza lodged an FIR against the petitioner and other Director of the petitioner company namely Mr. Tushar M. Patel who is the son of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 304, and 120b of the IP Code. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the FIR are false and false to the knowledge of the complainant. According to the petitioner, without prejudice to their rights and also without prejudice to the merits of the matter, the petitioner is ready and willing to undertake before this Court to provide rehabilitation to the family of the members who have been affected due to the collapse of the block of the building and he is ready and willing to reconstruct the building wh