Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Nileshbhai Madhubhai Vaniya vs State Of Gujarat & on 24 December, 2014

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

     C/SCA/18838/2014                                       ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


           SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18838 of 2014

================================================================
             NILESHBHAI MADHUBHAI VANIYA....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS NAMRATA J SHAH FOR MS. KRUTI M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
               KUMARI

                           Date : 24/12/2014


                            ORAL ORDER

Heard   Ms.Namrata   J.   Shah,   learned   advocate   for  Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner.

It   is   submitted   that   the   petitioner   has  approached this Court without availing the alternative  remedy for the reason that no opportunity of hearing  has been granted to him before the impugned order has  been   passed,   therefore,   the   principles   of   natural  justice have been violated.

Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/18838/2014 ORDER

It   is   further   submitted   that   the   proceedings  carried out by the respondents against the petitioner  show an utter lack of application of mind, inasmuch as  the   notice   issued   to   the   petitioner   is   dated  12.12.2014,   whereas,   the   impugned   order   has   been  passed a day earlier, that is, on 11.12.2014. It is  further submitted that though the impugned order has  been passed on 11.12.2014, which date is reflected in  the first paragraph thereof, however, the last page of  the order reflects the date as 17.09.2014. Hence, the  proceedings   against   the   present   petitioner   are   not  legally sustainable. 

Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioner   further  submits   that   without   prejudice   to   the   above  contentions, the petitioner is ready to pay the amount  to the penalty to the respondents for the overloading  of the vehicle. 

Issue   Notice   for   final   disposal,   returnable   on  19.01.2015.

By way ad­interim relief, it is directed that the  Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/18838/2014 ORDER respondents shall not take any action pursuant to the  order dated 11.12.2014, passed by respondent No.2.

In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct  Service is also permitted.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush Page 3 of 3