Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/8967/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8967 of 2010
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2744 of 2003
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 218 of 1989
========================================================
N
T AGHARA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BHUJ
MUNICIPALITY - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPAK C RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 The
application is filed praying for condonation of delay of 1343 days in
filing Misc. Civil Application (Stamp Number) No. 2744 of 2003 in
Special Civil Application No. 218 of 1989.
2.0 The
Misc. Civil Application was filed for revival of the Special Civil
Application No. 218 of 1989 which was disposed of on 23.03.2000.
According to the applicants, certain directions were issued by this
Court in the aforesaid order and liberty was granted to the
applicants for revival of the petition in the case of difficulty. It
is alleged that the respondent-Corporation has not complied with the
directions and, therefore, the applicants have filed a note for
revival of the petition but since it was not circulated the above
application has been filed and, therefore, there is delay of 1343
days.
3.0 The
entire application of the applicants consists of two paragraphs which
reads as under:
1.0 The
applicants are original petitioners in the Special Civil Application
No. 218 of 1989. The applicants submit that the Hon’ble Court decided
the matter on 23.03.2000 and directed the respondent to consider
the claim of the petitioners for conveyance allowance, HRA and for
selection grade from 01.07.1988 to 31.05.1993. The Hon’ble Court
further directed the respondent to consider claim of the petitioners
and pass a reasoned order. This exercise has to be undertaken and
completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of writ of the order or certified copy thereof whichever is earlier.
The applicants submit that while disposing of the petition, the
Hon’ble Court granted liberty to revive the petition in case of
difficulty to the petitioner. The applicants after judgement of this
Hon’ble Court waited for the order of the respondent-Municipality as
per the direction given by the Hon’ble Court and it was requested the
authority to decide the matter but it was not elicited any response
from the respondent- Municipality.
2. The
applicants state and submit that as the respondent authority not
responding and not deciding the claim of the applicants and not
acting according to the direction of the Hon;ble High Court, the
applicants filed a note as per the prevalent practice of the Court
at the relevant time for revival of the petition. The applicants,
therefore, filed a note through advocate on 29.09.2000 for the
revival of the petition, but it was not circulated by the Department
and, therefore, the applicants filed the above mentioned application
for revival of the petition. In view of the above
mentioned application for revival of the petition. In view of
the above mentioned facts there is sufficient reason for reason for
the condonation of delay.
3.0 Admittedly,
the order of this Court is dated 23.03.2000. If the directions issued
by this Court were not complied with, the applicants had appropriate
remedy apart from reviving the petition. A note was filed for revival
of the petition on 29.09.2000. After filing the note the applicant
has not made any effort to bring the matter on Board. In fact,
thereafter the applicant has not done anything in the matter till
11.12.2003 when the aforesaid Misc. Civil Application was filed. It
is required to be noted that even after filing the aforesaid MCA in
the year 2003, the applicants have not made any efforts to get the
matter heard. There was office objection with regard to delay.
However, the present application was filed only in August 2010
praying for condonation of delay, that too without explaining delay.
4.0 A
perusal of the application itself shows that there is no explanation
much less reasonable explanation for the delay in question. The
applicants were totally negligent and ignorant and did not pursue the
matter diligently. There is absolutely no explanation with regard to
the delay. The fact that the present application has been filed in
the year 2010 shows gross lethargy on the part of the applicants. I,
am, therefore, of the view that this application deserves to be
rejected. Accordingly this application is rejected. Consequently,
Misc. Civil (Stamp Number) No. 2744 of 2003 also shall stand
rejected.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top