Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/17584/2003 1/ 7 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17584 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RANJANBEN
NARESHKUMAR SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UA TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 2,
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR
JN JADEJA for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 05/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 08.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Director,
Small Savings, Ahmedabad Division whereby the
agency granted to the petitioner was suspended.
2.0 The
facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is an agent of
Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana since 1984 under the small
savings scheme of the Government of India. The petitioner has granted
certificate of authority as an agent. On 20.10.2003, one
Thakarshibhai Keshraji Dabhi filed one criminal complaint against the
petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been granted
anticipatory bail by the City Sessions Court. On the basis of the
same set of allegations, the respondent No.2 without affording
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and in violation of
principles of natural justice suspended the certificate of authority
of the petitioner by an order dated 08.12.2003. Hence, this petition.
3.0 This
Court initially issued notice on 16.12.2003. It will be important to
note that this Court while issuing notice, incorporated the following
observations in paragraph No.6:
It
is clarified that failure on the part of the respondents nos. 2 and 3
in appearing before the court and explaining the contingency brought
before this court, appropriate order of interim protection will be
passed o the returnable date. DS to……………
3.1 On
18.12.2003, the Court passed further order. Relevant part of which
reads as under:
In
view of above, in the interest of justice, the impugned order
suspending the licence dated 08.12.2003 issued by respondent no.2 is
hereby placed under suspension till the next date of hearing.
4.0 The
matter then came up for hearing on 28.01.2004. On that day, the
Court granted ad- interim stay in terms of paragraph No. 17(B), on
condition that the petitioner shall not take up new clients.
5.0 On
02.11.2004, this Court after hearing the learned advocates and after
taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the respondents,
admitted the matter and ordered the interim relief to continue. The
Court also observed that:
…….
It will be open for the respondents to conduct inquiry against the
petitioner under the Rules. It will be open for the respondents
to approach this Court for modification or vacating of interim
relief, if the inquiry is conducted within one year from today.
6.0 As
the respondents have not moved any application either for
modification or vacating the interim relief, the petitioner has filed
Civil Application No. 8583 of 2006 for confirmation of the ad-interim
relief granted earlier.
7.0 Thereafter,
on 09.07.2007 this court has passed the following order in Civil
Application No. 8583 of 2006.
This
application is filed for confirmation of the ad-interim relief
granted earlier staying the order dated 25/7/2006. I have heard Mr.
Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Jadeja,
learned advocate for newly added respondent. Mr. Trivedi
has submitted that after due inquiry carried out by respondent no. 2
the Postal Authority, the applicant has been given a clean-chit
and it is held that the applicant has not committed any irregularity
as alleged against her. Mr. Jadeja, however, opposes the report. He
further states that newly added respondent wishes to challenge the
said report by filing appropriate proceedings. However, in view of
the report, the ad-interim relief is required to be confirmed and
hence this application is granted and ad- interim relief granted
earlier is confirmed and the applicant is now at liberty to have
new clients.
It
is also clarified that if any proceedings are taken up by
newly added respondent to challenge the report of respondent no. 2,
it will be open for the said respondent to move application for
vacation of the interim relief in the event of his succeeding in
proceedings challenging the said report. The said report is taken on
record.
8.0 Pursuant
to the above order passed by this Hon’ble Court as per the
information of the applicant, Postal authority as well as the
respondent No.2 herein, have already concluded the inquiry. If at
all the result of inquiry would have been against the applicant, the
Postal authority would have immediately filed an application for
modification or vacating interim relief, as the liberty was reserved
for them. This is one of the reasons that no irregularity is found
against the applicant. Furthermore,
the agency of the applicant was valid upto 30/06/2006 which has been
further extended upto 30/06/2009.
9.0 In
view of the fact that after 02.11.2004, the respondents have not
moved either for modification or for vacating the interim relief,
there is a reason for this Court to accept the request of the
applicant original petitioner and grant the relief as prayed for.
10.0
After impleading the newly added party as respondent No.4 in the main
petition, immediately thereafter the reply was filed by the
respondent No.4 stating that the civil application filed by the
petitioner is required to be rejected.
11.0
It is clear that as there is no irregularity found against the
petitioner, there is no application filed by the respondent for
vacation of interim-relief granted to the petitioner. The agency
of the applicant was valid upto 30/06/2006 which has been further
extended upto 30/06/2009 and further it was extended upto 30.06.2012.
In that view of the matter, nothing is pointed out not to grant the
prayers made in this petition. I am also of the view that the
petition can be disposed of in terms of interlocutory order.
12.0
For the foregoing reasons the petitioner will be governed by the
interlocutory order passed by this Court. Rule is made absolute
accordingly with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier
stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top