Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16701/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16701 of 2010
=========================================================
KHURSHID
A RAVJI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
CB UPADHYAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
MR. ANKIT SHAH for Respondent(s) : 4,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)
for Respondent(s) : 5 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 25/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned Advocates for the parties.
2. This
Court (Coram : K.A.Puj, J.) on 28.12.2010 passed the following order
:
“1. Heard
Mr. C. B. Upadhyaya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
and perused the memo of petition as well as the documents
attached therewith.
2.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, notice be
issued to the respondents making it returnable on 24.01.2011.
Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 7 (b) is granted on
condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of
Rs.50,000/- with the Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery Department,
Ahmedabad, the respondent No.2 herein, on or before the returnable
date. D.S. Permitted today. ”
3. Today
the matter was called out. Mr. Bhatt learned Advocate appearing for
the workman contended that the petitioner has adopted smart practice
and he has not even joined the affected workman in whose favour the
certificate is annuring. Besides the amount which is amount of
Rs.50,000/-, which was to be deposited with the Mamlatdar, Alien
Recovery Department, Ahmedabad, as a condition precedent for granting
stay has also not been deposited and only Rs.10,000/- have been
deposited. Learned Advocate Shri Upadhyay for the petitioner
submitted that it was a genuine mistake in not joining the concerned
affected workman as a party. There was no intention to play smart
practice with the Court and as the petitioner is in very precarious
condition she does not have any deposit of Rs.50,000/-, therefore two
days time may be granted and stay may be extended.
4. Looking
to the opposition and objection of Shri Bhatt, learned Advocate of
the workman, and the fact that no record or even application is
pressed into service
indicating on oath the difficulties on the part of the petitioner in
accumulating Rs.50,000/- and depositing the same, this Court would
not be in a position to continue with the stay which was conditional.
In fact, no order is required to be made by this Court as the order
itself is conditional upon depositing Rs.50,000/- and that the amount
is not deposited, stay cannot be said to be continued. Hence, the
Mamlatdar and other respondents are at liberty to take out the course
available to them in law as if no stay is existing. Matter to come
up for further hearing on 04.02.2011.
Sd/-
(S.R.
Brahmbhatt, J.)
M.M.BHATT
Top