- (1.) Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made important observations and raised important questions relating to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in case of Kapila Hingorani versus State of Bihar reported in 2003 Indian Law Decisions, Vol. 6 Part Ipage 19, which are reproduced as under: "It is also well settled that the interpretation of the Constitution or the Statutes is changed from time to time. Being a living organ, it is all going and with the passage of time, they must change. New rights may have to be found out within the constitutional scheme. Horisons of constitutional law are expanding." Whether in a case of this nature, the Court would take a sheer legalistic approach in holding that the corporate veil would not be lifted although its conscious stand satisfied that there has been violations of citizens' right to life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ? "Term 'life' used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wide and far reaching concept. It includes livelihood and so many other facets thereof. "Life" as observed by the Field, J., in Munn versus Illionois (1877) 94 US 113 means something more than mere animal existence and the inhabitation against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed."
(2.) Heard learned advocates Mrs.Sangeeta Pahwa, Mr.Gautam Joshi, Mr.Jayant P. Bhatt, Mr.Kamlesh Mehta, Mr.B.S.Brambhatt appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the respective petitions and learned advocate Mr.P.K.Parekh on behalf of the respondent - Gondal Municipality, so also, learned AGP Mr.R.V.Desai and learned Government Pleader Mr.A.D.Oza for respondent State Government Authorities.
(3.) Against this group of petitions, the respondent Gondal Municipality has filed Caveat. Thereafter, this Court has issued notice to all the respondents. On behalf of the respondent - Gondal Municipality, affidavit-in- reply has been filed and a copy thereof has been served on the other side.;