A court becomes functus officio upon the final disposal of a writ petition and lacks jurisdiction to entertain miscellaneous applications seeking to reopen proceedings. Such applications are limited to clerical or arithmetical corrections and cannot be used to revive litigation or challenge jurisdiction after the matter has been terminated.

IA ORDER

The captioned application is filed seeking clarification of the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application no.5159 of 2023. Notably, while disposing of the writ petition, the Collector was required to decide the issue involved and apropos which, the Collector has passed an order dated 03.01.2025 which now, is subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application no. 4179 of 2024. During the pendency of the writ petition that the captioned application is filed seeking clarification to the effect that while passing the order dated 24.08.2023, this Court has not debarred the applicant from raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Collector.

2. Mr Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that this Court, based on the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, required the Collector to decide the issue after hearing all the parties and the writ petition was disposed of by passing an order dated 24.08.2023. It is submitted that the Collector, has/had no jurisdiction much less any powers to decide the issue. Although, parties to the proceedings have given the consent, mere consent of the parties, would not confer jurisdiction on the Collector. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1963”) and especially section 258, it is the Regional Commissioner who can pass the order, suspending or executing the orders, etc. of the Municipality; and the Collector has no role to play in the matters falling within the powers of the Regional Commissioner.

2.1 It is further submitted that before the Collector, a detailed reply was filed raising various contentions including the contention that the Collector does not possess jurisdiction to decide the grievance of the parties inasmuch as, the order is passed by the Nagarpalika granting permission to construct a compound wall and would be a subject matter of appeal before the authority of the Municipality and not the Collector under the Act of 1963. In the absence of any powers conferred upon the Collector, the decision taken is tainted with illegality and is bad.

2.2 It is further submitted that the land in question upon which the towers are standing, the non-agricultural permission has been granted for industrial purpose and not for residential purpose. Also the residential towers that are constructed, are without any permission from the Nagarpalika and considering the nature of construction, no indulgence could have been shown to the respondents i.e. the original petitioners.

2.3 Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 and S. Kuldeep Singh & Anr. vs. S. Prithpal Singh reported in (2023) 19 SCC 609 for the proposition that when the statute does not confer jurisdiction on the tribunal or court, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the basis of the consent of the parties. It is therefore, submitted that it is well settled that consent does not confer jurisdiction and hence, the Collector ought not to have passed the order especially when the objection was raised as regards jurisdiction by the applicants. It is next submitted that the writ petition is preferred by the applicants on various grounds including the ground of jurisdiction; however, this Court, required the applicant, to seek clarification and hence, the captioned application.

3. Mr Antrix Kapa