Gujarat High Court
New vs State on 28 January, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/148/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 148 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3520 of 1999
=========================================================
NEW
GUJARAT ELECTRO HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SACHIN D VASAVADA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR CB UPADHYAY, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Opponent(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By way of this application, the applicant has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:
5(B) Your Lordships may be, in the interest of justice, pleased to restore the captioned Special Civil Application No.3520/1999 and further be pleased to permit the applicant to take out the Xerox copy from the record of this Hon'ble Court so as to enable the applicant to place the complete set before the Hon'ble Division Bench.
5(C) Your Lordships may be, in the interest of justice, pleased to restore the captioned Special Civil Application No.3520 /1999 and further be pleased to dispose of the same in the line of observations made in para 31 of Bombay High Court Judgment reported in 2007(3) Mah. L.J. 275, which is confirmed by Apex Court in JT 2009 (5) SC 206, permitting the members of petitioner association to do the practice in the field of Electropathy.
When the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.3520 of 1999, came up for hearing before this Court on 11th December 2009, this Court passed the following order :
Mr. Vasavada, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that another matter involving identical issue is pending before the Division Bench of this court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1314 of 2009. Office is directed to verify and place this matter along with the said LPA before the said Bench on 17.12.2009 if the petitioner furnishes second set within a period of four days. If the petitioner fails to furnish the second set within four days from today, this matter may be placed before this court on 17.12.2009.
Thereafter, the said petition came up for hearing before this Court twice i.e. on 17th December 2009 as well as on 29th December 2009. However, the said order dated 11th December 2009 was not complied with by the learned advocate for the applicant. However, when the said petition came up for hearing lastly on 30th December 2009, the following order was passed :
This Court on 11.12.2009, had passed the following order :-
Mr. Vasavada, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that another matter involving identical issue is pending before the Division Bench of this court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1314 of 2009. Office is directed to verify and place this matter along with the said LPA before the said Bench on 17.12.2009 if the petitioner furnishes second set within a period of four days. If the petitioner fails to furnish the second set within four days from today, this matter may be placed before this court on 17.12.2009.
In spite of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not supplied the second set of the memo. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.
The only reason for not complying with the order of this Court is that few pages were missing in the brief of the applicant. According to the applicant such pages were required to be taken from the record of this Court. At the same breathe the applicant states in paragraph 3 as under :
The applicant submits that the applicant could not furnish the second set as the matter was old and the applicant as well as the then lawyer of the applicant had not the entire set of file as after verifying the Hon'ble Court's file, it has been found that few pages were missing in the brief/file of the present applicant. Even, as on today, the applicant is without the entire set of paper as it is the transferred brief.
The applicant has not given the date on which he has verified the record of this Court. In any case if the applicant had verified the record of this court and found that some pages are missing, the applicant could have immediately taken copies from the record of this Court with permission of the Registry. However, even after knowing the said fact the applicant has kept quiet in spite of the clear order of this Court. Therefore, there is a deliberate delay and/or non-compliance of the order of this Court and, therefore, I do not find that this to be a case where a lenient view can be taken and restore the main matter to file.
The application is, therefore, rejected.
(K.S. Jhaveri, J) Aakar Top