Gujarat High Court
Kantidas Tulsidas Poraniya vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary & 13 on 4 September, 2017
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 11079 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14527 of 2011
==========================================================
KANTIDAS TULSIDAS PORANIYA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 13....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AD OZA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 8 , 13
MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KAMAL M SOJITRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 14
MR MM SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 10
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 , 7
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 , 11
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 04/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the applicant and the respondents.
2. I have considered the affidavits filed by the respondents in objection to the request made by the applicant in present application. Page 1 of 8 HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER
3. So far as respondent No.8 is concerned, besides the objection on ground of delay, the said respondent has opposed the application with following submissions:
"It is further submitted that the documents produced at page 14 to 53 cannot be relied upon, because the same cannot be considered as authentic / genuine as it does not contain any stamp or signature, and even it does not tally with the description made at serial no.5 on page 4 of the application.
I further say that I am possessing much more qualification than the required qualification shown in the so called statement produced by the applicant. I have more than 6 years of experience as senior lecturer and therefore, I do possess the required administrative experience. I further say that.
In view of the above facts, contentions and submissions the applicant is not entitled for any of the relief as prayed for and the application is required to be dismissed in limine."
4. So far as respondent No.10 is concerned, beside the objection on ground of delay, the said respondent has raised objection (against the request made in the application) with following submissions:
"That the applicant has not shown the source from which said documents are received by him. The authenticity correctness of documents are not established. The applicant has chosen to seek leave for stray papers and not documents showing entire set of communication.
That I do not admit any of the document and applicant be put to strict proof of authenticity of documents as Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER well as corrections of contents of document.
That the document cannot be produced at belated stage and relied unless they are proved for which trial is required therefore also the application may kindly be dismissed."
5. Ms.Pandya, learned advocate for respondents No.4, 5, 7 and 11 has also opposed the application on similar ground. With reference to petitioner's request and the grounds of objection by the respondents, it necessary to mention that (a) the documents which the applicant - petitioner wants to place on record are to support the contention or ground on which the challenge against impugned decision / action of the respondent is raised from very initial stage; (b) the said ground is raised as one of the principal grounds of challenge; (c) with help of said documents the applicant does not seek to raise new ground or to introduce new fact or to change the structure or foundation of his challenge or he does not intend to introduce new ground for first time or to change the complexion of the petition / subject matter.
Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER
6. The said document would assist the Court to test the strength of petitioner's challenge as well as the strength of the case of the State and GPSC. Differently put, they will assist the Court in appreciating rival contentions more effectively.
7. The documents which would assist the Court in effectively deciding the case should be welcome and should be received on record at any stage - particularly in writ jurisdiction - so long as they do not change the subject matter or do not introduce new case.
8. Its is not established by private respondents that the documents will cause irreparable legal injury, if they are received on record, more so when the Court has clarified that they will get opportunity to oppose the documents on merits and to place material on record to counter the documents sought to be placed on record (under affidavit).
Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER
9. Actually, such documents should have come on record from the State and/or GPSC. The said authorities, the petitioner claims, have kept said documents away from scrutiny by the Court.
10. Further, when this Court received affidavit and certain documents from the respondent GPSC on 1.9.2017, i.e. during final hearing and when none of the respondents, including the State, did not raise any objection against submission of the affidavit and documents by GPSC, there is no justification to deny opportunity to the petitioner.
11. Further, sufficient opportunity would be available to the respondents to deal with the documents sought to be placed on record by the petitioner and that, therefore, there is no justification in respondents' objection against the petitioner's request for permission to place on record the documents which may not only assist the petitioner in supporting his contention but may also assist the Court in ascertaining the Page 5 of 8 HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER factual aspects.
12. So far as the objections which are raised by the respondents No.8 and 10 (on ground of above quoted objections) are concerned, suffice it to say that the said contentions touch the merits and contents of the documents, which can be raised by the respondents while dealing with the said documents on merit and for that purpose the respondents will get opportunity after the documents are received on record.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the objections raised by the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to place the documents (referred to in paragraph No.2 of this application) along with the affidavit, on record of Special Civil Application No.14527 of 2011.
14. It is clarified that if any respondent wants to file affidavit so as to place on record other Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER details or connected / relevant documents in counter to the documents accepted on record (which are submitted by the petitioner) or if any respondent wants to file any affidavit in counter to the said documents / affidavit submitted by the petitioner, then the respondents may do so within one week after the petitioner carries out the amendment so as to place on record the said documents and the affidavit.
15. The petitioner shall carry out necessary amendment, so as to place the documents / affidavit on record of Special Civil Application No.14527 of 2011, on or before 7.9.2017. If the respondents want to file any document in counter or any affidavit in counter, the respondents may do so by 14.9.2017.
With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Page 7 of 8 HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017 C/CA/11079/2017 ORDER Bharat Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Sat Sep 09 17:04:45 IST 2017