Viralgiri Jayantgiri Goswami vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 29 February, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Viralgiri Jayantgiri Goswami vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 29 February, 2016

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

                     C/SCA/3289/2016                                                 ORDER




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3289 of 2016

         ==========================================================
                         VIRALGIRI JAYANTGIRI GOSWAMI....Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR DHARMESH V SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR. K. ANTANI, AGP - ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the
         Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                                           Date : 29/02/2016


                                             ORAL ORDER

By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"6.(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of quo warrant writ in the nature of quo warrant or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent Authority to take immediate action against the respondent No.3 for the fraud played by him with the State Government to secure the government services on the basis of report and information disclosed dated 13.08.2010, 30.08.2013, 06.12.2013.

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to call the action taken report by the authority against the Respondent No.3 on the information disclose on the basis of report dated 13.08.2010, 30.08.2013."

This litigation has a chequered history. In the first round of litigation initiated by the petitioner herein by filing SCA No. 8432 of 2015, this Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 16th July, 2015, which reads as under:-

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 03 01:26:58 IST 2016 C/SCA/3289/2016 ORDER "1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"8. (A) Your Lordship may be pleased to Admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of quo warranto writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent Authority to take immediate action against the Respondent No.3 Dr. for the fraud played by him with the State Government to secure the government service on the basis of report and information disclosed dated 13.08.2010, 30.08.2013, 06.12.2013.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to call the action taken report by the authority against the Respondent No.3 Dr. on the information disclose on the basis of report dated 13.08.2010, 30.08.2013, 06.12.2013.

(D) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of parties."

2. Indisputably, the respondent No.3 was appointed as the Panchkarma Ayurvedic Doctor under the Gujarat Ayurvedic Services (Class-I) way back in the year 1995. The petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.3 on the said post on the ground that at the time of his appointment he had produced a bogus and false experience certificate.

3. I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ application after a period of almost 20 years.

4. It appears that the Vigilance Commissioner of the Gujarat State has already initiated an inquiry in this regard and the inquiry seems to be pending. At the end of the inquiry, if it is ultimately established that the respondent No.3 had played fraud at the time of his appointment, then the authorities shall appropriately look into the matter.

5. Mr.Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the inquiry was initiated in the year 2007 but has not yet been completed. I expect the authorities concerned to complete the inquiry expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months form today.

6. With the above, this petition is disposed of."

It appears that under the Right to Information, the petitioner has come to know that the inquiry, which was initiated by the Vigilance Commissioner has been ordered to be filed.

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 03 01:26:58 IST 2016 C/SCA/3289/2016 ORDER No reasons are forthcoming as such, or the outcome of the inquiry. However, I am not inclined to entertain this writ-application for the simple reason that it smacks lack of bonafide and does not appear to have been filed in good faith. The petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. This application therefore fails and is accordingly rejected.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 03 01:26:58 IST 2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court