Gujarat High Court
Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan vs Vimlaben Natubhai Sharma & on 22 July, 2013
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
VADODARA MAHANAGAR SEVA SADAN....Applicant(s)V/SVIMLABEN NATUBHAI SHARMA C/CA/6905/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6905 of 2013 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 976 of 2013 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6683 of 2013 With CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 6178 of 2013 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 976 of 2013 ================================================================ VADODARA MAHANAGAR SEVA SADAN....Applicant(s) Versus VIMLABEN NATUBHAI SHARMA & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR HARESH J TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 22/07/2013 COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) At the stage of considering an application for condonation of delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, we have decided to hear out the appeal itself as the same should be dismissed on a pure question of law.
This appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant of a Special Civil Application, which was described as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the appellant before us challenged the order passed by an Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act wherein the order of the competent authority was challenged.
It appears that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said application.
After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that the subject matter of challenge in the Special Civil Application being an order passed by an Appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, there was no scope of exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issue of a writ of certiorari as held by this very Bench in the case of Revaben wd/o Ambalal Motibhai & Ors. vs. Vinubhai Purshottamdas Patel & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GLH 440. Moreover, in this case the appellant himself has described the application as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be challenged by way of an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
On the above ground alone, we dismiss this appeal. We make it clear that we have otherwise not gone into merit and dismissal of this appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant in seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
As the appeal itself has been dismissed, the connected civil applications have become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) zgs Page 3 of 3