Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/12058/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 12058 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1842 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12620 of 2008
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1842 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12620 of 2008
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY – Petitioner(s)
Versus
TUSHAR
GHANSHYAMBHAI GAJERA & 1 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NJ SHAH, AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s)
: 1 – 2.
MR MB PARIKH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 27/01/2011
ORAL
COMMON ORDER :
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The present
application is for condonation of delay of 641 days in preferring
appeal against the order dated 15/10/2008 passed by the Ld. Single
Judge of this Court, whereby the application of the original
petitioner is directed to be decided as per the policy prevailing
then i.e. on the date of the application for compassionate
appointment.
2. Heard
Mr. Shah, Ld. AGP for the applicant and Mr. Parikh, Ld. Counsel for
the respondent no. 1 original petitioner. We may also state that with
a view to see that the merits of the matter may not be frustrated on
account of the delay, we have also heard Mr. Shah, Ld. AGP as well as
Mr. Parikh on the merits of the appeal.
3. As such if the
contents of the application for condonation of delay are considered
in light of the subsequent affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on behalf of
the applicant by Shri Bachubhai Rupaji Bhagora, it appears that there
is no sufficient explanation for delay and the stand taken is
contrary. Such a long delay of 641 days cannot be said to be
sufficiently explained, which may call for discretion for condonation
of delay.
4. Apart from the
above, if the merits of the appeal against the order of the Ld.
Single Judge is considered, it appears that the issue, which arose in
the appeal, is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 11/5/2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 22 of 2010 and
allied matters which includes Letters Patent Appeal No. 2306 of 2009
in Special Civil Application No. 12472 of 2008, wherein the view
taken is that the application for compassionate appointment if not
decided for a long time, it cannot be rejected on the ground of
change of policy and the applicants were directed to decide the
applications as per the policy prevailing then.
5. Further, additional
aspect is that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench dated
11/5/2010 was carried by the applicants to the Apex Court in SLP so
far as it related to Letters Patent Appeal No. 2306 of 2009 and as
per the order passed by the Apex Court in aforesaid SLP dated
19/10/2010 the view taken by the Division Bench dated 11/5/2010 has
not been interfered with and the Apex Court has expressed the view in
agreement with the view taken by this Court. Under these
circumstances, we find that even if the merits of the present appeal
are considered, the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Ld. Single
Judge would not call for interference.
6. Hence, in view of
the above, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
7. In view of the
above, the Letters Patent Appeal [Stamp] No.1842 of 2010 would not
survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.
[
JAYANT PATEL, J. ]
[
J.C. UPADHYAYA, J.]
*
Pansala.
Top