Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14353/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14353 of 2011
=========================================================
NAVINCHANDRA
RANCHODLAL BHADRA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JIGAR M PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AJ DESAI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 23/09/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers :
“A) This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of or in th nature of,
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, commanding/directing respondents more
particularly respondent no.1 to decide the Case No.405 of 1999
instituted in connection with the said document, a copy whereof
figures at Annexure “A” to the petition, at the earliest;
B) Pending
admission, disposal and final hearing of the above numbered writ
petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents
more particularly respondent no.1 to decide the Case No.405 of 1999
instituted in connection with the said document, a copy whereof
figures at Annexure “A” to the petition.
C) Such
other(s) and further relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
to be granted in the interest of justice;”
2. The
case of the petitioner is that the document executed on 27.10.1998
has been impounded but in spite of proceedings being commenced and
replies being filed by him, no decision has been taken by
representation spondent No.1 till date. The petitioner was issued a
notice dated 07.07.1999 informing him, and other concerned persons,
to remain present in the office of respondent No.3, who had impounded
the said document under the provisions of Section-33 of the Bombay
Stamp Act, 1958, on 09.07.1999. A case was registered and a reply was
filed by the petitioner on 17.07.1999. The petitioner received
another notice dated 28.07.2003, issued by respondent No.1, asking
him to remain present in his office on 18.08.2003, in which there was
no reference to the reply dated 17.07.1999 filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner, therefore, filed another reply on 08.08.2003. The
grievance of the petitioner is that, though he has approached
respondent No.1 several times and requested him for early hearing and
decision of the case, there has been no response from the said
respondent, and the case of the petitioner remains undecided, till
date, though a period of about eight years has elapsed, after the
petitioner filed the second reply.
3. Mr.Jigar
M. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner states, that the
interest of justice would be met, if directions are issued to
respondent No.1 to decide Case No.405/1999, instituted in connection
with the document in question, within a stipulated period of time.
4. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the following order is passed :
Respondent
No.1 shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner, being Case
No.405/1999, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Intimation of the
decision shall be given to the petitioner.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into
the merits of the case.
Direct
service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top