( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. A. Shah, 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 :-THE petitioner herein came to be accused in connection with the CR No. 54 of 2001 registered at Satelite Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under section 304,418, 120b read with section 114 of the IP Code and section 42 of the Gujarat Ownership Flat Act, 1973 for the contravention of the provisions of section 3 (1) (c) (d) 7 (1) of the Said Act. The incident in question took place on 26. 1. 2001 at about 8. 45 a. m. for which a complaint came to be filed on 2. 2. 2001 at about 5. 00 p. m. by one Shri Sanjaybhai Kantilal Bhavsar. It is the case of the complainant in the complaint that on account of the earth quake that struck Ahmedabad City on 26. 1. 2001, "b" Block of Ayodhya Apartments situated in Satelite Area collapsed leading to death of as many as five persons and the collapse of the said building has taken place on account of poor quality of construction. That the petitioner herein is one of the partner in the firm namely M/s. RK Developers which came into existence in the month of January, 1995 with an intention to carry on the business of estate developers, organizer, builder and contractor and as a general merchant and commission agent and leasing or hire purchase of machineries and other assets or any other business as may be agreed upon between the partners. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the arrest of the petitioner, other partners of the firm submitted representation to the senior PI, Satelite Police Station on 22. 4. 2001 inter alia revealing several aspects which could have led to the collapse of the B Block of the said Apartment. The firm of the petitioner, though having pointed out numerous aspects pertaining to collapse of the said building, yet, instead of i