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 61]

Gujarat High Court

Balvantbhai Sardarbhai Pagi & 9 vs Deputy Engineer & 3 on 9 November, 2016

Author: G.R.Udhwani

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

                     C/SCA/12350/2016                                             ORDER



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12350 of 2016
                                          With
                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12351 of 2016
                                               With
                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14561 of 2016
                                               With
                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15438 of 2016
                                                TO
                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15453 of 2016
                                               With
                        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17345 of 2016
         ==========================================================
                      BALVANTBHAI SARDARBHAI PAGI & 9....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
                          DEPUTY ENGINEER & 3....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         PETITION WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Petitioner(s) No. 2 - 10
         MR BIPIN BHATT AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 4
         MR UM SHASTRI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                                        Date : 09/11/2016


                                         ORAL ORDER

Learned   Counsel   for   the   petitioner   has  brought to the notice of this Court, the observations  made by this Court in paragraph No.9 of the decision  rendered   in   group   of   matters   being   SCA   No.28470   of  2007,   28471   of   2007   and   5798   of   2008   decided   on  16/07/2014, [2014 LawSuit(Guj) 872] thus:

2. "8. It is noticed that this Court is flooded with number of   identical   matters,   as   noticed   in   Paragraph­7.   Number   of   Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 30 02:31:56 IST 2017 C/SCA/12350/2016 ORDER decisions   are   rendered,   reiterating   the   same   issue   over   and   over  again.  Once  the High  Court  concludes  a question  of law,   it   has   to   be   acted   upon   to   the   benefit   of   all   similarly   situated   beneficiaries,  irrespective   of   their   filing   the   petition   or   other   legal   proceedings   for   claiming   such   benefits. If the judgment of the High Court settling the legal   position   is   not   implemented   in   the   aforementioned   manner,   identical   cases   will   go   on   multiplying,   resulting   into   flooding of the litigation in already overburdened Courts. Not   only   that,   considerable   public   time,   money   and   energy   gets   involved in the avoidable litigation. 
9. At   times,   it   is   noticed   that   different   departments   of   the  State  would  take  their  individual  stand,  contrary  to  the   stand   taken   by   the   other   department   on   the   same   or   similar   matter,   perhaps   because   of   lack   of   coordination   between   the   two or more departments. It would be, thus, appropriate if the   State   evolves   a   policy   to   avoid   the   avoidable   litigation   as   aforesaid.   In   fact,   the   State   has   already   declared   its   litigation   policy   and   it   is   desirable   that   under   the   said   policy, the issue discussed in Paragraphs­8 and 9 is addressed   by   the   State   to   save   public   time,   money   and   energy   in   avoidable litigation."

In   view   of   the   above   observations,   the  respondent­State   is   directed   to   file   an   affidavit  explaining   its   litigation   policy,   more   particularly,  its policy of dealing with the similar cases arising  at  different   point   of   time  raising   the  legal  issues  which   may   have   been   already   settled   and   might   have  attained   finality   by   not   challenging   the   same   or  failing in the challenge to it.

Considering   the   fact   that   the   petitioners­ employees retired before six or seven years and would  be crossing the age of 65 years being Senior Citizen,  the matter would be heard finally on 30/11/2016.

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 30 02:31:56 IST 2017 C/SCA/12350/2016 ORDER Adjourned to 30/11/2016.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) sompura Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Mar 30 02:31:56 IST 2017