Pareshbhai Manubhai Borda & vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 20 June, 2014

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Pareshbhai Manubhai Borda & vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 20 June, 2014

Bench: K.M.Thaker

           C/SCA/1295/2014                                              ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
           SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1295 of 2014
============================================================
====
         PARESHBHAI MANUBHAI BORDA & 1....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR.ROHAN YAGNIK, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BC DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 5
MR KUNAL B DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 , 6
================================================================

           CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                                    Date : 20/06/2014


                                     ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the respondents and Mr.Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners and with the consent of learned advocate for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain petition against the orders of interim relief, more particularly, when the revision application / appeal is pending before the competent authority.

Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/1295/2014 ORDER

4. However, in present case, the petitioner has shown procedural irregularity in the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the competent authority.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that on 19.11.2013, the matter was scheduled for hearing however, due to reasons recorded in the order, the hearing of the matter was adjourned to 07.01.2014.

6. Thereafter, the applicant before the revisional authority approached the revisional authority in absence of present petitioner and requested the revisional authority to prepone the hearing.

7. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the authority had issued notice informing the date of hearing to the petitioner.

8. However, the petitioners did not receive any notice.

9. Subsequently, though any proof of service of notice to the petitioner was not record, the revisional authority proceeded to hear the applicant in absence of the opponent on the proponed date / scheduled date.

10. The revision application was heard and the order was reserved.

11. Thereafter, the competent authority passed the order dated 21.12.2013.

12. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter the Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/1295/2014 ORDER petitioners submitted an application before the competent authority mentioning theirs objections against the said procedural irregularity however, authority did not taken into consideration the said objections.

13. Aggrieved by the such impugned order, more particularly, by the said procedural irregularity, present petitioner has preferred present petition and challenged the said order and submitted that the said order is passed in violation of principle of natural justice.

14. It is in such circumstances and in light of such facts that the Court has considered it appropriate to entertain present petition though it is against the interlocutory order.

15. Having regard to the fact that:-

(a) The competent authority preponed the date of hearing from 07.01.2014 to 11.07.2013 in absence of the petitioner.

(b) Thereafter, took up the matter for hearing on 11.12.2013 in absence of the present petitioner.

(d) Also having regard to the fact that when the petitioners herein submitted an applications/objections in respect of said procedural irregularity on 07.12.2013, the revisional authority did not rectify the procedural Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/1295/2014 ORDER irregularity

(e) subsequently passed order dated 21.12.2012 without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(f) Also having regard to the fact that said factual aspects mentioned by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondent.

16. It appears appropriate that the impugned order dated 21.12.2013, which was passed in violation of principle of natural justice be set-aside. Therefore, below mentioned is passed:-

(1) The impugned order is set-aside only on the ground that it is passed by violation of principle of natural justice.

(2) The other aspects and/or merits of the order are not examined by the Court.

(3) It is clarified that it will be open to the revisional authority to hear the applicants and pass fresh order of interim relief, if so required.

(4) In the alternative, the revisional authority may proceed to hear and decide the revision application i.e. main application on priority and preferential basis.

(5) If the respondent authority considers it appropriate to pass any order of interim relief before the revision application is heard on merits, then such order may be Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/1295/2014 ORDER passed after hearing the contesting parties and independently without being influenced by order impugned in present petition.

(6) It is again clarified that the Court has not entered into merits of the matter and has not expressed any opinion with regard to the revision application and order is set-aside only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice.

With the aforesaid clarification and direction, present petition is disposed of.

(K.M.THAKER, J.) Girish Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court