Gujarat High Court
Sanu Krishna Ias vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13245 of 2024
==========================================================
SANU KRISHNA PS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR ROCKEY for MR HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Petitioner
MR HENIL SHAH for the Respondent No.2 - State Authority
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
" 8(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2018.
(c) Your Lordships may be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of conviction dated 20.02.2017 by the learned Coast Guard Court.
(d) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to issue appropriate directions to reinstate the present petitioner back to service with all consequential and attendant Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined benefits as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court."
2. The short facts of the present case are epitomized as under.
2.1 The petitioner, while working in the Coast Guard at Okha - Gujarat as Uttam navik (WTR) of ICGS Arinjay attached with ICGS Okha.
2.2 He had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of using criminal force against his superior officers.
2.3 As per the Charge-sheet, the charge was that on 09.10.2016, the petitioner has used criminal force to his superior officers viz., Assistant Commandant Madhur Sharma (1149-L), Executive Officer of the ship where the petitioner was working and Assistant Commandant Adarsh Pal (1236-J), Regulating Officer of the ship, with iron rod and hands. The said charge-sheet was issued on 15.12.2016.
2.4 Appropriate orders of the Director, General Indian Coast Guard was taken on 12.01.2017, whereby it was ordered that 'to be tried by Coast Guard Court'.
Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 2.5 Accordingly, the petitioner was tried by the Coast Guard Court and after evaluating the evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary, was convicted for simple imprisonment for twelve months and dismissal from the Coast Guard service, vide order dated 20.02.2017.
2.6 The petitioner was committed to Jamnagar Prison, Gujarat.
2.7 The said order dated 20.02.2017 was challenged by the petitioner directly before this Court by filing Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.3051 of 2017, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has, vide order dated 03.05.2017, disposed of that application. The said order is as under.
"1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant - a former Coast Guard Personnel has prayed for the following prayers:
8(a) to allow this Application;
(b) to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the conviction order dated Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 20.02.2017 passed by the Coast Guard Court vide which the petitioner was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment.
(c) to suspend the sentence of the
petitioner till the pendency of this
present petition.
(d) to dispense with the affidavit of the present petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner is imprisoned at Jamnagar jail.
(e) any other and further relief/s which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court be granted.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the writ-applicant herein was put to trial before the Coast Guard Court for the offence of using criminal force to his superior officer punishable under Section 19(a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. The authority concerned vide order dated 20/02/2017 held the writ-applicant guilty of the charge and imposed sentence of one year imprisonment.
3. Being dissatisfied with such order, the writ-applicant is here before this Court by way of this writ-application.
4. The order impugned can be challenged Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined before the Central Government or to the Director General as the case may be under Section119 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. Section119 of the Act, 1978 reads as under :
"Section - 119. Petitions to Central Government or Director General against findings and sentences. Any person subject to this Act who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of any Coast Guard Court may present a petition to the Central Government or to the Director General, and the Central Government or the Director General, as the came may be, may pass such orders thereon as it or he may think fit.
5. Thus, in view of an alternative remedy available to the writ applicant herein, I am not inclined to exercise my extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It shall be open for the applicant herein to file an appropriate petition to the Central Government or to the Director General for the purpose of challenging the order of conviction and sentence. If any, such application in the form of an appeal under Section 119 of the Act, 1978 is filed either before the Central Government or to the Director Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined General, then the same shall be considered at the earliest preferably within a period of one month from the date of the presentation of such petition. At the time of presentation of such petition, it shall be open for the writ applicant herein even to pray for suspension of the substantive order of sentence and such prayer should be considered at the very threshold.
6. With the above, this application is disposed of.
Direct service is permitted."
2.8 In view of above order, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 12.05.2017 before the Appellate Authority concerned i.e. the Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Government of India.
2.9 Since the Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner within stipulated time prescribed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2017 noted above, the petitioner has filed Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.6652 of 2017, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 06.09.2017 and thereby suspended the sentence.
"1. By way of present petition, the petitioner Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 19 of the provisions of Coast Guard Act, 1978 and sentenced for one year has prayed as under :-
"a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition;
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned letter/order dated 19.04.2017.
c) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to suspend the sentence of the petitioner till the pendency of the present petition.
d) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to dispense with the affidavit of the present petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner is imprisoned at Jamnagar Jail.
e) Any other and further relief/s which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court be granted."
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the appeal has been filed by the petitioner, the same has not been decided. The petitioner is behind bar from 20.2.2017.
3. Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by preferring Special Criminal Application No.3051 Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 2017 and this Court while disposing of the said petition on 3.5.2017 observed that it shall be open for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 119 of the Act, 1978 and if such an application is filed, it was directed to consider the same within a period of one month from the date of presentation of such petition. In pursuance of the said order, though the petitioner had filed an appeal, the same has not been decided by the respondent authority. He, therefore, would submit that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be suspended till the appeal is decided by the respondent authority.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2 - State would submit that the respondent authority would decide the appeal in expeditious manner and with that direction, the present petition may be disposed of.
5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has been sentenced for a period of one year. He is behind bar since 20.02.2017 that means he has undergone more than half of the year imposed and therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed by the respondents is Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined required to be suspended till the appeal is decide. Hence the following order :-
"The sentence imposed by the judgment and order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Coast Guard Court is hereby suspended till the appeal is decided. The respondent authority shall pass an appropriate order by releasing him under the provisions of Section 107 and 108 of the Coast Guard Act."
6. With the above direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
Direct service is permitted."
2.10 Against the said order, the Central Government has preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) -
Diary No.19182 of 2018, which is pending for final adjudication.
2.11 The Appellate Authority i.e. the Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, has, vide order dated 03.10.2018, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 2.12 After suspension of sentence, since the petitioner has shifted to his native at Kerala, he challenged the said order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority before the Kerala High Court by filing WP (C) No.8342 of 2019, wherein the Kerala High Court has, vide order dated 03.04.2019, dismissed that petition and has observed that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and is liable to be filed before the appropriate Court with jurisdiction.
2.13 The petitioner has challenged that order passed by the Kerala High Court before the Division Bench - Appellate Bench of Kerala High Court by filing an appeal being WA No.2174 of 2019, which is withdrawn by the petitioner on 05.08.2022.
2.14 Now, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 03.10.2018 before this Court in the year 2024 i.e. after about six years.
2.15 It is this matter which is heard by this Court today with above facts.
3. Heard learned advocates.
Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate Mr. A.R. Rockey for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 is bereft of any reasons and has been passed without any application of mind; and that it is prima facie an unreasoned order that is based on earlier findings and is devoid of any discussion on the subject matter; and that there has been a delay in approaching this Court inasmuch as the order under challenge is dated 03.10.2018 while the present petition is being preferred in the year 2023; and that this is singularly due to the fact that the petitioner in the year 2019 had preferred to litigate before the Kerala High Court considering the fact that the order under challenge is a Central Government order and hence, could be challenged in the territory he normally resides; and that the petitioner is now aware that such a reasoning was flawed inasmuch as it is this Court that would have primary jurisdiction since the order of conviction dated 20.02.2017 was passed within the territory of Gujarat; and that since the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 traces its existence back to the proceedings before the Coast Guard Court held in Gujarat; and that petitioner could also not approach this Court earlier in time since he had approached the Kerala High Court in the year 2019; and that thereafter, from the year 2020 till 2021, on account of the COVID Pandemic, the petitioner could not attend the litigation pending before the Kerala High Court;
Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined and that upon his release from custody in the year 2017 upon his sentence being suspended, the petitioner had preferred to seek private employment to support himself as well as his family and accordingly, he had taken up employment in Oman and therefore, he could not follow-up the litigation before the Kerala High Court; and that any perceived delay in approaching this Court may kindly be disregarded and condoned; and that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Coast Guard Court seem to have heavily relied on the testimonies of the superiors of the petitioner ad on the opposite end of the spectrum, the witnesses that have supported the innocence of the petitioner, their testimonies have not been given any credence; and that the trial Court has / Law Officer has recorded the facts in a manner which is highly prejudicial to the petitioner; and that the casual and unreasoned approached in the impugned order speaks volumes about the non-application of mind by the competent authority. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Henil M. Shah for the State Authorities has vehemently opposed this petition.
He has submitted that there is a huge delay by the petitioner in approaching this Court by challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.10.2018; and that the Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined petitioner is well aware about the proceedings as well as legal procedure about filing of a writ petition; and that the petitioner himself has conceded that he went to foreign country after the order passed by the Appellate Authority;
and that earlier, the petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondent authorities before this Court by way of various proceedings, however, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority before the Kerala High Court; and that as the Hon'ble Single Judge has indicated that the Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction, that too on 03.04.2019, even though the petitioner has carried out the said order before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. He has submitted that the petitioner was aware about lack of the jurisdiction to the Kerala High Court, even though he has preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and thereby, killed the time. He has submitted that the petitioner has intentionally delayed the proceedings and therefore, this petition may be dismissed with cost.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. From the record as well as from the facts noted above, the picture which has emerged before this Court is as under.
Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 6.1 The petitioner was working as Uttam Navik (WTR) at ICGS Arinjay attached with ICGS Okha, Gujarat in the Coast Guard. He had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge levelled against him. The charge was that, on 09.10.2016, the petitioner has used criminal force to his superior officers viz., Assistant Commandant Madhur Sharma (1149-L), Executive Officer of the ship and Assistant Commandant Adarsh Pal (1236-J), Regulating Officer of the ship, with iron rod and hands. The trial was commenced. After evaluating the evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary on record, the petitioner was found guilty by the learned Coast Guard Court on the charges levelled upon him and ultimately, the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Coast Guard Court for the offences punishable under Section 19(a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 ('the Act, 1978' for short). Section 19(a) reads as under.
"19. Striking or threatening superior officers.--Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,--
(a) uses criminal force to or assaults his superior officer; or
(b) xxx
(c) xxx Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined
(d) xxx shall, on conviction by a Coast Guard Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned:
Provided that in the case of offences specified in clauses (c) and (d), the imprisonment shall not exceed five years."
6.2 The learned Coast Guard Court has, vide order dated 20.02.2017, awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for twelve months and dismissal from the Coast Guard Service under the provisions of Sections 53 and 58 of the Act, 1978. The petitioner was committed to Jamnagar Prison, Gujarat. Sections 53 and 58 read as under.
"53. Punishments awardable by Coast Guard Courts.--
(1) Punishments may be inflicted in respect of offences committed by persons subject to this Act and convicted by Coast Guard Courts according to the scale following, that is to say,--
(a) death;
(b) imprisonment which may be for the term of life or any other lesser term;
(c) dismissal from the Coast Guard;Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined
(d) detention in Coast Guard custody for a period not exceeding two years;
(e) reduction to the ranks or to a lower rank in the case of sailors;
(f) forfeiture of seniority of rank, forfeiture of all or any part of the service for the purpose of promotion;
(g) forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension or any other prescribed purpose;
(h) fine, in respect of civil offences;
(i) mulcts of pay and allowances;
(j) severe reprimand or reprimand except in the case of persons below the rank of an Uttam Navik or Uttam Yantrik.
(2) Each of the punishments specified in sub- section (1) shall be deemed to be inferior in degree to every punishment preceding it in the above scale.
58. Provisions as to award of punishments.-- (1) The punishments that may be inflicted under this Act shall be awarded in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) A sentence of imprisonment under this Act shall in all cases be accompanied by a sentence of dismissal.
(3) A sentence of imprisonment may be rigorous or simple or partly rigorous and partly simple.
Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined (4) No officer shall be subject to detention for any offence under this Act.
(5) No subordinate officer shall be sentenced to detention except for desertion.
(6) A sentence of detention shall not be accompanied by a sentence of dismissal from the Coast Guard.
(7) A sentence of detention for a period exceeding fourteen days shall in all cases be accompanied by stoppage of pay and allowances during the period of detention.
[(8) Where mulcts of pay and allowances are awarded for absence without leave, the absence shall be treated as regularised for all purposes.]"
6.3 The said order of conviction dated 20.02.2017 was challenged by the petitioner directly before this Court by filing Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.3051 of 2017, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has, vide order dated 03.05.2017, disposed of that application and thereby not entertained the same on the ground that there is an alternative remedy of departmental appeal under the Act, 1978. This Court has directed the appellate authority concerned to decide the appeal, if filed, within a period of one month and reserved liberty to pray for suspension of sentence.
Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 6.4 Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 12.05.2017 before the Appellate Authority concerned i.e. the Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Government of India. 6.5 Since the appeal could not be adjudicated finally by the appellate authority concerned within stipulated time, the petitioner has preferred Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.6652 of 2017 before this Court, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has suspended the sentence vide order dated 06.09.2017.
6.6 Being aggrieved, the Central Government has preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) - Diary No.19182 of 2018, which is awaiting final adjudication. 6.7 Vide order dated 03.10.2018, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 6.8 After the order of suspension of sentence, the petitioner has shifted to his native at Kerala. 6.9 Since the petitioner was well aware that the entire episode has happened within the territorial jurisdiction of Gujarat; and further he was also well aware that on Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined earlier two occasions, he had challenged the action of the respondent authorities before this Court, this Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 before the Kerala High Court by filing WP (C) No.8342 of 2019 to adopt the delayed tactic, as he is not behind the bars.
6.10 In the said proceeding before the Kerala High Court, the Kerala High Court High Court has, vide order dated 03.04.2019, dismissed that petition by observing that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and is liable to be filed before the appropriate Court with jurisdiction.
6.11 Even though the wisdom has not prevailed upon the petitioner. This Court would not like to give him the benefit of his intentional delayed tactic. 6.12 The petitioner could not rest here. He further challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court before the Division Bench at Kerala High Court by filing an appeal being WA No.2174 of 2019, which is withdrawn by the petitioner on 05.08.2022. 6.13 The demeanor of the petitioner smacks a lot. Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined 6.14 On one hand, he gets the order of suspension of sentence and is out of the bars and one the second hand, he is using the delayed tactic by one way or the other. 6.15 It is noted that the order of conviction passed by the learned Coast Guard Court dated 20.02.2017, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.10.2018, is starring on the petitioner. 6.16 It is also required to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, vide order dated 20.07.2018, while issuing notice, observed that the notice is limited to the point as to whether the respondent would have to serve the remainder of the sentence if the appeal is dismissed. The said proceeding is still awaiting final adjudication. 6.17 It is this petition of the year 2024, which is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.10.2018, after a huge delay of about six years. 6.18 This Court has also kept in mind the escapism of the petitioner, which he has stated in his petition itself, that after the order of the appellate authority dated 03.10.2018, the petitioner went to foreign country, though for an Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined employment. By going abroad, though for an employment, would not be a justifiable reason to condone the huge delay in approaching this Court. Except that, the petitioner has not explained the satisfactory delay as to why he has not approached this Court within reasonable time. From the demeanor of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has adopted delayed tactic in approaching this Court. The petition could approach this Court after the observation of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court vide order dated 03.04.2019, however, he could not approach this Court for the reasons best known to them. 6.19 Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner has not given sufficient reasons for approaching this Court after a huge delay of six years. In fact, this Court also finds that the petitioner has adopted delayed tactic to avoid the proceedings before this Court intentionally. This Court, therefore, need not be entertained. 6.20 Even otherwise, on merit also, the petitioner has no case. The learned Coast Guard Court has, after evaluating the evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary, passed the order of conviction, against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which is dismissed by the appellate authority concerned and thereby confirmed the order of Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13245/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/08/2025 undefined conviction. The impugned order is just and proper and this Court does not warrant any interference. Therefore also, this petition need not be entertained. Further, the petition is adjourned from time to time in last one year without even issuing notice to the other side. There is no substance in the present petition. This petition is devoid of merit.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Aug 21 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 21 22:07:48 IST 2025