Gujarat High Court
Satishbhai Babulal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2024
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15244 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15244 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SATISHBHAI BABULAL SHAH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI SR ADVOCATE assisted by
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 04/10/2024
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned proceedings being Tenancy Appeal No.21 of 2019 in Tenancy Case No.3 of 2012 (new case No.251 of 2016) and Tenancy Case No.4 of 2012 (new case No.250 of 2016) and the impugned order dated 13.06.2022 of the respondent No.3 to de novo decide the proceedings between the petitioners and the respondents No.4.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction permanently restraining the respondent No.3 from proceeding further in Tenancy Case No.251 of 2016 as per the directions of the respondent No.2 in the impugned order dated 13.06.2022 as well as from proceedings in Tenancy Case No.250 of 2016 pending with the respondent No.2 and further holding that the respondents No.2 & 3 have no jurisdiction or authority to proceed with Tenancy Case No.3 of 2012 (new case No.251 of 2016) and Tenancy Case No.4 of 2012 (new case No.250 of 2016).Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition writ petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the order dated 13.06.2022 passed in respondent No.2 in Tenancy Appeal No.21 of 2019 and restrain the respondent No.3 from proceeding further in Tenancy Case No.3 of 2012 (new case No.251 of 2016) and Tenancy Case No.4 of 2012 (new case No.250 of 2016).
(E) Ad-interim relief in terms of para 11 (C) be granted by this Hon'ble Court.
(F) Any other and further orders that are deemed necessary in the interests of justice may be passed."
2. The matter was heard on 26.08.2022 and after hearing learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr.Abhishek Mehta for the petitioners, once the arguments were concluded, the matter was reserved for judgment.
2.1 Though the judgment was ready and was listed for pronouncement on 5.6.2023, the Court was informed by learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta that the petitioners have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.637 of 2023 wherein the Division Bench of this Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined Court vide order dated 1.5.2023 issued rule and made it returnable on 24.7.2023 and in the meantime, interim relief in terms of paragraph No.15(B) (i) and
(ii) was granted. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta pointed out that the prayer made in the appeal is about stay of further proceedings of the present petition pending before this Court.
The above relief continued to operate till 26.9.2024 and ultimately, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court after taking note of the fact that the judgment which was kept reserved by this Court was ready for delivery since 2023, the appeal was dismissed and the relief granted was vacated. It is in view of this fact that though the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment on 5.6.2023, the same is being pronounced today i.e. on 4.10.2024.
3. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, giving rise to filing of the present petition are as under:
3.1 The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent nos.4 and 5 having connivance with each Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined other and by abusing and misusing process of law have tried to reopen the proceedings which have attained finality upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and though Respondent No.5 was a party to the aforesaid proceedings, by way of this petition, she is trying to reopen the case which is impermissible under the law.
3.2 The present petitioner no.1 purchased land bearing survey no.157 and 158 of Village Bodakdev, Tal.Ghatlodia, Dist.Ahmedabad in the year 1993 by way of registered sale-deed from Respondent No.4 viz.
Ramesh Ballubhai Desai. Thereafter in the year 1997, the proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ['the Tenancy Act', for short] were initiated against present petitioner by Mamlatdar and ALT, Ahmedabad for which Tenancy Case No.46 of 1997 and Tenancy Case No.107 of 1997 were registered.
3.3 The Mamlatdar, Daskroi vide order dated 10.09.1998 after hearing the parties held that the petitioner no.1 is an agriculturist and therefore there is no breach of Section 2(2) , 2(6) and Section 63 of the Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined Tenancy Act and hence he withdrew notice given under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act by way of order dated 10.09.1998.
3.4 The Respondent No.4 challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.09.1998. In the petition it is everywhere stated as '10.08.1998' but on perusal of annexures the Court has found it as '10.09.1998'.
3.5 The Respondent No.4 challenged the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT before Respondent No.2 Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeal) by way of Tenancy Appeal No.179 of 1998 and even the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeal) also rejected the appeal preferred by Respondent No.4 vide order dated 24.09.1999 and confirmed the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT.
3.6 Having failed before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeal), the Respondent No.4 preferred Revision Application No.TEN / BA / 477 / 1999 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('GRT', for short). The said Revision Application was also dismissed by GRT Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined vide order dated 29.08.2003.
3.7 The Respondent No.4 challenged the order of the GRT dated 29.08.2003 passed in Revision Application No.TEN / BA/ 477 / 1999 by way of Special Civil Application No.13350 of 2003. However, the said Special Civil Application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2003.
3.8 Respondent No.4 challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 09.09.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.13350 of 2003 by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.966 of 2003. However, the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2003.
3.9 Respondent No.4 once again challenged the order dated 19.09.2003 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.966 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23662 of 2003. However, aforesaid Special Leave Petition also was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly the litigation between the Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined present petitioner and Respondent No.4 attained finality.
3.10 Thereafter, as stated in the petition, in the year 2012, the Respondent No.5, who was third party litigant before the GRT and was aware and was heard on the aspect of petitioner's status of 'agriculturist' in Revision Application No.TEN / BA/ 477/ 1999 filed two applications both dated 07.01.2012 before the Mamlatdar and alleged that the said Respondent No.4 viz. Ramesh Ballubhai Desai himself was not 'agriculturist' and he became owner of land in question by way of alleged Will executed by her father Jusaji Chelaji in favour of Chaturji Kesaji and he purchased the land from said Chaturji Kesaji by way of registered sale-deed dated 25.06.1982 having Registration Nos.9241 / 9255 for which Revenue Entry No.3269 dated 30.06.1982 was mutated in the revenue record. However, the aforesaid mutation entry was quashed by Prant Officer, Viramgam as Ramesh Ballubhai Desai himself was not an 'agriculturist' and hence vide order passed in Review Case No.2 of 1989 Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined the aforesaid revenue entry was quashed and set aside and that order was confirmed by Secretary, Revenue Department in proceedings numbered as No.37 of 1989 and 05 of 1990 and both these orders have remained unchallenged. Further, in her application she has stated that though she preferred Civil Suit in the Civil Court being Regular Civil Suit No.1015 of 1995 and by issuing notice called upon the petitioner to produce the Will said to have been executed in favour of Chautr Kesaji, till date the aforesaid Will has not been produced on record which would indicate that as such there is no Will in favour of Chatur Kesaji.
3.11 In view of above aspect as Ramesh Ballubhai Desai himself was not agriculturist and yet he become owner of land in question by way of fraudulent Will executed in his favour and subsequently sold the land to the petitioners, she prayed for initiating appropriate actions.
3.12 Though the contents of the application preferred by Respondent No.5 are not stated in the memo of petition, this Court has perused the Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined application dated 07.01.2012 preferred by Respondent No.5 which is annexed at Anneuxre:G collectively by the petitioner and on perusal of the aforesaid application the contents of the application are reproduced as facts in the present order.
3.13 As the Respondent No.5 made two applications one for Survey No.157 and 158 of Mouje Bodakdev, Tal.Ghatlodia and another was for Block No.1325 of Mouje Shilaj, Tal.Ghatlodia, other applications are registered as Tenancy Case No.03 of 2012 and 04 of 2012 which were subsequently renumbered as New Case No.251 of 2016 and new Case No.250 of 2016.
3.14 The petitioners filed reply in those proceedings and prayed for dropping of those proceedings, however, despite taking note of the aforesaid reply, Mamlatdar issued two more notices dated 21.08.2017 and, therefore, petitioner initiated contempt proceedings before this Court being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2755 of 2017 in Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined Letters Patent Appeal No.966 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No.13350 of 2003 against the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as Respondent No.4 and in that proceedings Mamlatdar filed affidavit dated 08.08.2018 and tendered unconditional apology and by filing affidavit submitted that vide order dated 01.08.2018 he has withdrawn the notice dated 21.08.2017.
3.15 It is in this background the petitioner has preferred this petition stating that despite aforesaid affidavit filed by Mamlatdar stating that notice dated 21.08.2017 is withdrawn, respondent no.4 herein challenged the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2018 withdrawing the notice dated 21.08.2017 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) by way of Ganot Appeal No.21 of 2019 [Ganot Revenue Review Case No. 216 of 2018] and in that application the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) Ahmedabad vide order dated 13.06.2022 while partly allowing the appeal quashed and set aside the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Ghatlodia to decide Tenancy Case No.251 of 2016 de Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined novo.
3.16 Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid aspect the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that the appeal against the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Ghatlodia withdrew notice dated 21.08.2017 was nothing but an abuse of process of law as the litigation between the Respondent No.4 and present petitioner had gone upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court and it was held against Respondent No.4.
4.2 Upon an inquiry by this Court as to why the petitioners have approached this Court straightway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition when the petitioners have an alternative remedy of challenging the order dated 13.06.2022 passed in Ganot Appeal No.21 of 2019 [Ganot Revenue Review Case No. 216 of 2018], by way of revision application under Section 76 of the Tenancy Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined Act before the GRT and as to why this petition should be entertained when the alternative remedy is available to the petitioners.
4.3 In view of above query, learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi relied upon the following decisions and submitted that when there is an abuse and misuse of process of law, alternative remedy would not come in the way of petitioner and, therefore, this Court should consider the case of petitioner and entertain this petition despite availability of alternative remedy.
1) 1998 (8) SCC 1 in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Mark wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the given cases powers under writ jurisdiction can be exercised, even there is efficacious alternative remedy provided by law
2) 2011 (3) GLR 2286 in the case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs. District Consumer Redressal Forum wherein it is held that in the given case powers under writ jurisdiction can be exercised, even there is efficacious alternative remedy provided by law and the Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined litigant may not be relegated to avail alternative remedy.
3) in Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2021 in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has very recently held that in the given cases powers under writ jurisdiction can be exercised, even there is efficacious alternative remedy provided by law.
4) 2021 AIR (SC) 2114 in the case of M/s. Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the given cases powers under writ jurisdiction can be exercised, even there is efficacious alternative remedy provided by law.
5) In the decision of Ishwar Narayanbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1821 of 2019 wherein Hon'ble Division Bench place reliance in the case of M/s. Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2021 AIR (SC) 2114 has quashed and set aside the order of Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined Ld.Single Judge holding that in case where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where an order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, than in such circumstances, the writ court should not hesitate to entertain the writ petition, despite the fact that alternative remedy is available in law.
4.4 In view of aforesaid submissions, the matter was heard and was reserved for judgment.
5.1 I have considered the submissions made by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.Abhishek Mehta and perused the record of the matter. I have considered the judgments relied upon by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi which ultimately state that availability of alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining the writ petition. I have also considered the fact that the dispute between the present petitioner and Respondent No.4 had gone upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioners have Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined succeeded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter when the Respondent No.5 preferred an application before the Mamlatdar and ALT pursuant to which Mamlatdar and ALT issued show cause notice and initiated proceedings by way of Tenancy Case No.3 of 2012 and Tenancy Case No.4 of 2012 which were renumbered as Tenancy Case No.251 of 2016 and 250 of 2016. Against those proceedings, a contempt application was preferred before this Court and ultimately notice dated 21.08.2017 was withdrawn by Mamlatdar and ALT and against that order Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal Case No.21 of 2019 and Tenancy Review Case No.216 of 2018 wherein the impugned order is passed whereby notice dated 21.08.2017 has been quashed and matter has been remanded back to Mamlatdar.
5.2 It is true that petitioners have succeeded upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also well settled by now that availability of alternative remedy cannot act as bar in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, at the same time, for Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined bypassing the statutory remedy, the petitioners must make out strong case for bypassing the alternative remedy by satisfying the Court as to why relegating the petitioners to avail alternative remedy would cause inconvenience to the petitioners and how the alternative remedy is in efficacious or not effective.
5.3 On considering the submissions made by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi as well as on perusal of record, this Court finds that it is true that the petitioners succeeded upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, present litigation initiated by Respondent No.5 which was subsequently undertaken by Respondent No.4 was prima facie unwarranted. However, by now it is well settled that if person becomes the owner of the land by virtue of Will and if he is not an agriculturist, in that case, he cannot be treated as agriculturist and, therefore, that very transaction as well as subsequent transactions are required to be looked into by taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect.
5.4 In the earlier round of litigation, which was Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined between the petitioner and Respondent N.4, as the proceedings against the petitioner once again under Section 84(C) of Tenancy Act were initiated and it was found that he is an agriculturist whereas by way of proceedings initiated by Respondent No.5 , she has categorically contended that Respondent No.4 is not an agriculturist and even before he sold the land to the present petitioners, revenue entries in respect of land purchased by Respondent No.4 by way of registered sale-deed on account of sale executed by father of Respondent No.5 in favour of one Chaturji Kesaji was quashed by the Deputy Collector and the said order was confirmed upto Secretary, Revenue Department which as per the application made by Respondent No.5 before Mamlatdar in the year 2012 remained unchallenged. If that is so, the first transaction itself was invalid and, therefore, that will have some bearing on the facts of the case.
5.5 Further, on perusal of orders passed in earlier round of litigation, this Court finds that the aforesaid facts about how Ramesh Desai became the owner of Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined land was never brought to notice of this Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or before any other revenue authority.
5.6 Considering the basic intention and object behind the Tenancy Act, what is most important is that an agriculturist must remain as an agriculturist and the purpose of Act must not be defeated on account of any of the illegality or fraud committed by any of the party or to the litigation. It is true that the petitioners have succeeded but then the dispute was in respect of status of petitioner as an agriculturist. Whereas when the matter is remanded back vide impugned order there the issue is about status of respondent no.4 as an agriculturist. Further, since the year 1993 till date, the petitioners have continued to hold the land. On perusal of petition, I do not see any averment which would indicate that the petitioners are in hurry to convert the land as non-agricultural land or they want to change the status of land from agricultural land to non- agricultural land. If the land which was agricultural land in the year 1992-93 when the petitioner Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined purchased the land has remained agricultural land even in the year 2023 and further when there is no specific reason coming forward to bypass statutory remedy, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered straightway by this Court as the petitioners could not make out a case for bypassing the statutory remedy. On the contrary, considering the background of case as well as considering the fact that petitioners have succeeded upto Hon'ble Supreme Court present petition can be disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits by directing the petitioner to approach the GRT against the order dated 13.06.2022 impugned in this petition and the GRT can be directed to hear and decide the Revision Application that the petitioner may prefer within a period of six months after notices are served upon the respondents.
6. Since the GRT is directed to hear and decide the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months after notices are issued to the parties, interest of justice would be served if the following directions are Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined issued.
6.1 The petitioner is directed to avail alternative remedy of preferring revision application before the GRT. If the petitioner approaches the GRT within a period of one month from today, the GRT is directed to take up matter on board immediately within a period of ten days from the date of filing for the purpose of issuance of notice and once the notices are served to the parties, the GRT is directed to hear and decide the revision application that the petitioner may file within a period of six months thereafter by passing reasoned order taking note of each and every contention that the petitioners may raise.
6.2 It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter and the present petition is not entertained only on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.
Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15244/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2024 undefined
8. In view of disposal of the main matter i.e. Special Civil Application No.15244 of 2022, the connected civil application would not survive. It is disposed of accordingly.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Mon Oct 14 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 19 22:22:13 IST 2024