Gujarat High Court
Rajkamal Industries vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 11 September, 2017
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4354 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAJKAMAL INDUSTRIES....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
HARSHESH R KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 11/09/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the Respondent-State in the following factual background:
The petitioner is a registered partnership firm, having its office at Porbandar. The land bearing Revenue Survey No. 2/9 paiki admeasuring 9894-4-0 sq. yards (8272-77-18) sq. mts. situated Page 1 of 20 HC-NIC Page 1 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 1 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT at Dharampur, Taluka: Ranavav, District: Porbandar (herein after, 'the said land / the land in question), was allotted to M/s. Kamalrai (Purushottam J) for industrial purpose for manufacturing petromax and lighter by the Commissioner, Rajkot, vide his order passed in July, 1963. An entry in regard to the same came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 34, Dated: 20.04.1966. The Collector, Junagadh, vide his order dated 25.07.1972, transferred the said land in favour of one Vanechand Bhurabhai Thakor and an entry to that effect came to be mutated in the Revenue Record vide Entry No. 186, Dated:
21.07.1981. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Junagadh, vide his order dated 31.08.1982 granted permission to sell the said land in favour of the petitioner Firm. Subsequently, a registered sale deed came to be executed on 23.11.1982 by said Vanechand Bhurabhai Thakor in favour of the petitioner-Firm.
It emerges that the petitioner-Firm, thereafter, sought permission for construction of two bridges from the Collector, Junagadh, and the same was granted on 06.07.1987 for the land admeasuring 231-64-00 sq. mts.. An entry being Entry No. 243, Dated: 22.08.1987, reflects the said aspect. The remaining land, i.e. the land admeasuring 7070 sq. mts., was declared to be in possession of the petitioner-Firm.
Page 2 of 20
HC-NIC Page 2 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017
2 of 22
C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT
2. The petitioner-Firm made an application
for conversion of a portion of the land, out of the said land, i.e. admeasuring 2787 sq. mts., from industrial to residential purpose, on payment of necessary premium.
The Valuation Committee, in its meeting dated 13.08.2008, determined the value of the said land at Rs.1800/- per sq. mts., coming to a total Rs.50,18,004/- for the aforesaid land, admeasuring 2787 sq. mts..
3. Thereafter, the petitioner, once again, made a request on 14.08.2008 to grant permission to convert the land admeasuring 2600 sq. mts. for residential (old tenure) land instead of 2787 sq. mts.. However, no final decision was taken by the respondents, though, the petitioner-firm was ready and willing to pay the premium.
On 06.12.2010, Respondent No.2 was directed by Respondent No.1 to decide the value of the land in question afresh, as two years had elapsed from the date of the decision earlier taken by the Valuation Committee dated 13.08.2008. Respondent No.1, on 06.12.2010, once again, directed Respondent No.2 to carry out the relevant inquiries and to report. Accordingly, a report of Respondent No.1 was placed for decision of the Page 3 of 20 HC-NIC Page 3 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 3 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT Valuation Committee in its meeting dated 01.07.2011 and the value of the land was determined at Rs.5,000/- sq. mts. and permission for the conversion of the land admeasuring 7070 sq. mts. was also granted. However, again, no final decision was taken by Respondent No.1.
4. Once again, Respondent No.1 was approached. As the delay had occurred, he directed to take a fresh look and submit report and once again, the very process was undertaken. Eventually, the value of the said land was determined by the Valuation Committee at Rs.13,500/- sq. mts.. A written consent was given by the Petitioner-Firm to Respondent No.1 to pay the premium at Rs.13,500/- sq. mts. for conversion of the land admeasuring 7070 sq. mts. from the new tenure to the old tenure land. Since, the amount of premium was exceeding Rs.50/- lakh, the file was sent to the State Valuation Committee for its approval.
5. Respondent No.1, thereafter, vide his order dated 28.09.2015, granted sanction in favour of the petitioner for converting the land admeasuring 7070 sq. mts. and directed the petitioner-Firm to pay a sum of Rs.9,54,45,000/- within a period of 30 days. Respondent No.1 also directed Respondent No.2 to pass necessary orders, giving a direction to the petitioner-Firm to pay the premium.
Page 4 of 20
HC-NIC Page 4 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017
4 of 22
C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT
Respondent No.2 vide his communication
dated 26.10.2015, directed the petitioner to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days. It, further, stated that on 24.11.2015, one year will complete from the date of determination of value of the land in question and if, the petitioner fails to pay the amount of premium before the said date, it would require to pay 12% interest on the said amount of Rs.9,54,45,000/- and thereby, the total amount, with 12% interest, would come to Rs.10,68,98,400/-.
6. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner vide its letter dated 20.11.2015 informed Respondent No.2 that it is ready and willing to pay the amount of Rs.9,54,45,000/- along with 12% interest, totaling to Rs.10,68,98,400/-, and therefore, made a request to grant a period of one year for making such payment.
Respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 10.12.2015, requested Respondent No.1 to consider such a request of the petitioner-Firm and recommended to extend the time requested for.
7. Respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 20.07.2016, inquired as to whether, the petitioner- Firm has paid any amount or not? If yes, whether, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the Page 5 of 20 HC-NIC Page 5 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 5 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT remaining amount with 12% interest?
8. Respondent No.2 had on 28.07.2016 informed Respondent No.1 that the petitioner had agreed to pay the amount with interest, and therefore, requested to consider the earlier letter dated 10.12.2015.
9. It is the say of the petitioner that on 25.10.2016, he again showed his willingness to pay the amount of Rs.9,54,45,000/- with 12% interest, totaling to Rs.10,68,98,400/-, as per the order dated 27.10.2015, and therefore, made a request to pass an appropriate order for depositing the said amount. As the time was getting over on 24.11.2016, a request was emphatically made. A message through the FAX also was sent to Respondent No.1 on 21.11.2016 by the petitioner-Firm. The petitioner also vide his communication dated 24.11.2016 brought it to the notice of Respondent No.2 to grant permission to deposit the said amount of premium along with a copy of the Challan of Rs.10,68,98,400/-. The third reminder was sent through R.P.A.D. by the petitioner vide his communication dated 22.11.2016.
10. Since, no reply was received from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act and through that the petitioner came to know that Page 6 of 20 HC-NIC Page 6 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 6 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT Respondent No.1 had, for the third time, vide his letter dated 29.11.2016 directed Respondent No.2 to get the valuation of the said land done again and send an opinion along with the relevant documents for the purpose of conversion of the said land from industrial (new tenure) to residential (old tenure) land. As two years had passed from the date of decision of the Valuation Committee, i.e. 25.11.2014, once again, the entire procedure was undertaken.
11. It is the say of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 20.01.2017 had intimated the petitioner that the Office of the Collector cannot sign or stamp the challan, since, the State Government has not taken any final decision in regard to his application dated 20.11.2015, requesting to grant one year's time for payment of the premium along with 12% interest. Although, Office of the Collector had recommended the grant of additional time of one year.
12. Therefore, the aggrieved petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:
"8. ...
(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to pay premium of Page 7 of 20 HC-NIC Page 7 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 7 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT Rs.9,54,45,000/- plus 12% interest totaling to Rs.10,68,98,400/-, as decided by the Valuation Committee in its meeting dated 25.11.2014, towards the conversion of land in question from industrial (new tenure) to residential (old tenure) as per the order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 28.09.2015 and the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 which are at annexure-'A' and 'B' respectively.
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the direction issued by the respondent no.1 vide its letter dated 29.11.2016 to the respondent No.2 and the subsequent proceedings done by the respondent nos.
2 to 5 in pursuance to the said direction.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents from further re-assessing the premium for conversion of the land in question from industrial (new tenure) to residential (old tenure) and for other consequential and other reliefs.
(D) Ex-parte ad interim relief in
terms of prayer (C) above may be
granted.
(E) ..."
13. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by Dy.
Mamlatdar, Porbandar, denying all the allegations and averments. It is contended that Respondent No.1 Page 8 of 20 HC-NIC Page 8 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 8 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT had granted sanction vide order dated 28.09.2015 for conversion of the land in question from the industrial to residential purpose and directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,500/- per sq. mts. within a period of 30 days and Respondent No. 2 was to pass an appropriate order, giving direction to the petitioner to pay premium, which came to total Rs.9,54,45,000/-.
14. It is, further, his say that the respondent authority had intimated the petitioner on 26.10.2015 to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days and since, one year was coming to an end, from the date of determination of value of the land, i.e. on 24.11.2015, if, the payment is not made by 24.11.2015, the petitioner-Firm has to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of premium, making it the total Rs.10,68,98,400/-. It was also intimated that, if, within the stipulated time period, payment is note made, then, it shall be deemed that the petitioner-Firm is not interested in converting the land from the new tenure land to old tenure land and their application shall be filed.
15. On 20.11.2015, the petitioner intimated Respondent No.2 that it is ready and willing to pay the amount of premium decided by the respondent authorities. But, made a request to grant one year's time for payment of the premium along with Page 9 of 20 HC-NIC Page 9 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 9 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT 12% interest.
16. A letter dated 10.12.2015 was sent by the Collector, Respondent No.2, giving his opinion, to Respondent No.1 to grant period of one year for making payment of amount of premium along with 12% interest. A proposal was sent to the Revenue Department to pass necessary orders.
17. A clarification was sought by Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 20.07.2016, which was replied to on 28.07.2016, expressing readiness on the part of the petitioner to pay the premium along with interest. The Revenue Department on 29.11.2016, intimated the Collector that, as per the resolution of the State Government, two years were already completed on 25.11.2016 from the date of determining the market value district Valuation Committee, and therefore, the valuation is required to be done again by the District Valuation Committee.
18. It is, further, the say of the respondent that on 09.03.2017, once again, the Collector, Porbandar, sent the proposal for re-valuation of the land in question and the District Valuation Committee was asked to re-determine the market value to convert the land admeasuring 7070 sq. mts.. The District Valuation Committee, therefore, determined the value of the said land at Page 10 of 20 HC-NIC Page 10 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 10 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT Rs.17,420/- per sq.mts., and therefore, the petitioner was required, now, to pay a sum of Rs.12,31,59,400/- for conversion of the land admeasuring 7070 sq. mts..
19. Affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed by the petitioner giving all these details and further affidavit-in-reply of the Collector, Porbandar, is also filed.
20. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Kakkad, for the petitioner and the learned AGP, Mr. Parikh, at length. It would not be necessary to dilate these submissions, which are in support of their rival pleadings.
21. The short question that arises, for the consideration of this Court, is as to whether any interference is warranted in the challenge, which is made to the action of the respondent authorities in not accepting the challan, which had been submitted by the petitioner. As can be noticed from the chronology of the events, three times the District Valuation Committed had determined the value of the land in question, where, the petitioner had sought conversion from new tenure land to the old tenure land. The action which is in question is when the District Valuation Committee determined in its meeting dated 25.11.2014, the rate of covnersion Rs.13,500/- per Page 11 of 20 HC-NIC Page 11 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 11 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT sq. mts.. As is apparent from the record, the communication sent by Respondent Nos. 1 to Respondent No.2 was on 20.09.2017 and the respondent No.2 had intimated the petitioner on 26.10.2015 to pay the amount at the rate of Rs.13,500/- sq. mts. Within 30 days. With a further intimation that by 24.11.2015, i.e. less than 30 days remained in completion of one year from the date of determination of the value of the land in question, i.e. from 24.11.2015. If, no payment is made by the petitioner by 24.11.2015, it had to pay the same with 12% interest on the total amount for conversion of the land, as determined by the District Land Valuation Committee. Considering the short period that the petitioner was getting to make the payment, he intimated that he was, though, ready and willing to pay the amount of premium, he made a request to grant one more year's time , where, he specified that he would be paying with interest at the rate of 12% and Respondent No.2 had forwarded the same to Respondent No.1, seeking one more year's time for the petitioner to enable him to deposit the amount. The response had come after more than seven months, i.e. on 28.07.2016. For the first time, inquiry was made, whether the petitioner had already paid premium or is ready to pay the amount of premium along with 12% interest on 20.07.2016. The Revenue Department, thereafter, intimated the Collector, Porbandar, that two years had already completed on 25.11.2014 and hence, the Page 12 of 20 HC-NIC Page 12 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 12 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT new valuation of the District Valuation committee would be necessary. It is not being disputed by Respondent No.2 that the petitioner had already made a request to his office to stamp the challan on 21.11.2016. It was also forwarded on 21.11.2016 by the office of Respondent No.2-the Collector. Prior to that there was already a communication dated 25.10.2016, making a request to grant one years' time, as the stipulated time period was getting over on 24.11.2015. It is also not in dispute that on 22.11.2016, a communication was addressed to Respondent No.2 with a request to stamp the challan of the amount of premium with interest, in all coming to Rs.10,68,98,400/-. The response, which had come, only on 29.11.2016, i.e. after the expiry of the period, which was getting over on 24.11.2015.
22. This Court had particularly questioned the learned AGP, Mr. Parikh, as to whether, there are any internal rules or mechanism for determining and finalizing the proposal given of any land or in respect of the conversion of the land, after once the District Valuation Committee finalizes the value of the said land, to which the reply is given in negation. He, further, submits that if the value of the land exceeds Rs.50/- lakh, the report of the District Valuation Committee is sent to the State Valuation Committee and if, it exceeds Rs.1/- crore, it is sent to the Chief Town Planner and Page 13 of 20 HC-NIC Page 13 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 13 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT then, it goes to the Cabinet on getting approval, it is sent to the Revenue Department and which in turn sends it to Office of the Collector, which informs the petitioner about the final outcome and determination of charges He was also asked as to what possible time shall be taken for stamping of the challan by the office of Respondent No.2, to which, his reply was that the same was received on 22.11.2016 and the last date of completing two years was 24.11.2016, which was a short period for the office of the Collector to process the challan. For verification, time was too short and therefore, when the petitioner had approached the authorities at the 11th hour would make it difficult for the authorities to process it.
23. This Court notices that the valuation, which had been determined by the District Valuation Committee, in its meeting dated 25.11.2014, where, the premium again was determined at Rs.9,54,45,000/-. It, since, had exceeded the sum of Rs.1/- crore, it was sent to the Chief Town Planner, who had sought opinion of the Cabinet and sent it back to the revenue authority and then to office of Respondent No.2, which had communicated to the petitioner, for the first time, on 26.10.2015.
Page 14 of 20
HC-NIC Page 14 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017
14 of 22
C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT
At this juncture, if, one looks at the resolution dated 22.11.2004, it specifies that if one year lapses after once the District Valuation Committee determines the value of the land, there shall be an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum shall be charged. This again would remain valid for a period of one year only. After once the period of two years lapses, once again the District Valuation Committee shall have to determine the value of the land. In other words, on expiry of one year, calculation at rate of 12% interest on the value determined by the District Valuation Committee, is a must as per the said resolution of 2004 and once, the period of two years passes, even with 12% interest the person concerned would not be permitted to pay the premium and there shall have to be once again the process of revaluation to be undertaken afresh and the process should culminate into payment within the time period, as mentioned herein above. There is nothing to indicate any internal rule or guidelines to determine the time period for internally deciding the application of any citizen within a stipulated time. While forwarding the proposal of any person, desirous of conversion of land, there is need to send the same to various authorities and what would happen more often than not is that the person concerned would end up in paying the additional amount towards interest at the rate of 12% annum, as stipulated in the said government Page 15 of 20 HC-NIC Page 15 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 15 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT resolution only because the process takes a long time period. Once communicated to the applicant the decision of the concerned authority even if the process has consumed much time, what would be counted is the date on which Valuation Committee determines the price of land. Every two years the fresh valuation of the District Valuation Committee is a must. The process of sanction begins with the District Valuation Committee assessing the value and the file travels to the office of the State Valuation committee and the Collector when accepts the same and if the amount exceeds Rs.50/- lakh and if it is above rupees one crore, the Chief Town Planner is required to opine. It is sent to the Cabinet and after that to the office of the Collector. It is a known fact that any process which passes through so many authorities would consume considerable time, hence, payment of interest at 12% per annum on expiry of one year period would be inevitable. Unless a time period is prescribed or fixed for completing this entire internal process, every such applicant is bound to be at disadvantageous position with substantial time being consumed in the process, itself.
24. As can be seen from the case on hand, after the District Valuation Committee determined the amount of premium of the land in question on 25.11.2014, it was only on 25.10.2015 that for the first time, the communication was effected and as Page 16 of 20 HC-NIC Page 16 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 16 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT the one year was completing on 24.11.2015, there was less than four weeks' period left for the petitioner for paying the entire amount. As there was no other go, the petitioner had agreed to pay the amount along with 12% interest. However, being aware of the fact that the entire procedure had taken long, Respondent No.2 had agreed to also propose for and on behalf of the petitioner to the State Government to extend the time by further one year on 10.12.2015, whereas, the clarification, as mentioned herein above was sought by the State Government on 20.07.2016 and by the time, the latter of the Revenue Department reached the Collector, Porbandar, period of two years had already elapsed on 29.11.2016. Thus, not only the remaining time period of one year, order of extension was passed but the last communication on 29.11.2016 was after the entire period of two year by all means.
25. Assuming that the request of extension of one year for payment of the amount of premium along with interest was pending with the Revenue Authority, there was nothing to preclude the Collector-Respondent No.2 to stamp challan, which had been presented prior to expiry of period of two years. Undoubtedly, the last date for the period of two years to expire was 24.11.2016. Necessary process, for stamping of the challan, was to be carried out, it was exclusively look by the Page 17 of 20 HC-NIC Page 17 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 17 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT Respondent No.2. Once an applicant adheres to the time-limit and submits challan prior to the expiry date, no authority can deny its acceptance nor can any limitation of internal process compel such to undergo the entire process once again, as has been done in the case on hand. The petitioner has been also asked to go through the very process on expiry of period of two years. It is needed to be mentioned that neither in the affidavit-in-reply or the additional affidavit from the Office of the Collector, Porbandar, there is a whisper, as to why there was no acceptance of the request made on 21.11.2016 by the petitioner. It also has not been anywhere mentioned, as to why the stamping of the challan is so difficult. It is unheard that the authority would not accept the request of deposit once a time limit is set and the request is made prior to the last date. The authority is bound to complete internal process and simply cannot insist on the citizen to apply or submit or comply with the directions, which, in the instant case, the petitioner had already done by presenting the challan with a request to permit it to deposit the same with the Office of the Collector, as he has authority to accept the same by stamping the challan. Thus, non-acceptance of the challan on the part of the authority and scrapping of the entire process to once again initiate the process of reassessment is nothing but an act, which is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of Page 18 of 20 HC-NIC Page 18 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 18 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT natural justice.
Here, it would not be out of place to mention, at this stage, that even if there was a proposal given by the petitioner, making a request of availing the period of additional one year and the same was approved by Respondent No.2, that could not have furnished a reason for him to deny the stamping of the challan, when, admittedly, the petitioner had agreed to pay the amount of premium with interest before the period to make payment expired. Petitioner had agreed to pay interest as prescribed at 12% per annum and, therefore, so far as the present petition is concerned, no indulgence in that respect is necessary.
26 Resultantly, this petition deserves to be allowed and is ALLOWED with COSTS, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to pay the premium of Rs.9,54,45,000/- along with 12% interest, i.e. total Rs.10,68,98,400/-, for the conversion of the said land from the new tenure to the old tenure land. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of TWO WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
While parting Respondent-State is directed to workout a mechanism in the form of effective order or guidelines setting an outer limit for completing internal process of assessment / valuation every time the request for conversion of land is made by the land owners. With a view to bring reasonable certainty to the entire process and for saving the common man from the vagaries of procedural hazards. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
Page 19 of 20 HC-NIC Page 19 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 19 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 JUDGMENT (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) UMESH Page 20 of 20 HC-NIC Page 20 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 20 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4354 of 2017 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 11/09/2017 in C/SCA/4354/2017 ] ========================================================== RAJKAMAL INDUSTRIES....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
HARSHESH R KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP,for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 5 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 29/09/2017 ORAL ORDER Considering the averments made in the present Note for speaking to minutes, the same is hereby allowed.
In the judgment dated 11.09.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.4354 of 2017 the sentence "Direct Service is permitted." is hereby added.
Rest of the judgment shall remain unaltered. Fresh copy be given to the other side. The speaking to minutes note is disposed of accordingly.Page 1 of 2
HC-NIC Page 21 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 21 of 22 C/SCA/4354/2017 ORDER (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) MIRZA Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 22 of 22 Created On Sat Sep 30 01:19:50 IST 2017 22 of 22