Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10049/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10049 of 2009
=========================================================
GAIL
(INDIA) LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
M/S
TRIVEDI & GUPTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr. J.K. Shah, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of
respondents.
2.
The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated
21.04.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal of the
petitioner was rejected.
3. It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was
allotted 70.87 hectares of land being Plot No. 1401 in GIDC
Industrial Area, Vaghodia, Vadodara on lease basis for 99 years in
consideration of a sum of Rs. 3,61,45,438/- being the
premium/allotment price. According to the Sub-Registrar an amount of
RS. 2961100/- towards the stamp duty and Rs. 593000/- towards
registration charges were required to be paid to get the aforesaid
lease executed and registered. The stamp paper was purchased
accordingly however could not be used immediately.
3.1 Thereafter,
due to certain reasons, the petitioner company requested the Sub
Registrar to recalculate the amount of stamp duty as well as the
registration charges payable on execution of lease deed for 66.30
hectares of land which turned out to be Rs. 2786500/- towards stamp
duty and Rs. 507700/- towards registration charges.
3.2 The
petitioner company after registration filed an application for
refund. Vide letter dated 28.06.2004 the respondent no. 1 authority
rejected the request of the petitioner. The petitioner company
therefore filed an appeal before the respondent no. 2 authority. The
respondent no. 2 authority rejected the appeal vide order dated
21.04.2007 on the ground of delay. Hence the present petition.
4. Heard
the learned counsel for the respective parties. When the statutory
authority has been empowered to hear the appeal against the order of
the Deputy Collector, the authority ought to have taken a practical
view of the matter and the appeal should have been considered on
merits. It is required to be noted that the higher authority is
required to consider the decision of the lower authority on merits in
order to give substantial justice to the parties if there are any
error on the part of the lower authorities. In my view the authority
denying the right of appeal on a technical plea of limitation in a
case like the present one is not just and proper.
5. In
the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji,
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it is held that refusing to
condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at
the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Under the
circumstances, the respondent authority ought to have condoned the
delay and considered the appeal on merits.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21.04.2007 passed by
respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay caused in
filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is remanded to the
respondent no. 2 who shall pass fresh orders on merits, as early as
possible, after hearing the petitioner. The petition stands disposed
of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with
no order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top