Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4624/2010 1/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4624 of 2010
=========================================================
PATEL
HARSHADBHAI MANILAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANSHODHAN
VAN VIBHAG - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 15/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. A
Government servant working in the Forest Department is before this
Court challenging the order, passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
4th Fast Track Court, Deesa, District: Banaskantha in
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2009 dated 08.01.2010, whereby the
learned first Appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and set
aside the order passed below Exhs. 5 and 24 in Regular Civil Suit No.
72 of 2006 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa on
07.01.2009.
2. The
learned Advocate for the petitioner opened the matter by saying that
petitioner is a servant of respondent without mentioning that
respondent is none other than the Forest Department of the State of
Gujarat. This shows the attitude and the outlook in life of the
petitioner that he feels shy of being identified as a servant of
Forest Department of the State of Gujarat.
3. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to
order impugned wherein this Court has noticed the following important
part, which reads as under:
The
order of Hon’ble High Court in Special Civil Application No. 14422 of
2003 dated 05.02.2004 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.L.Dave) was on
record of trial Court. This order shows that respondent has given
undertaking before Hon’ble High Court about vacating premises, but
respondent Mr. H.M.Patel (the petitioner herein) did not comply his
undertaking……….
At this
juncture, when it was put to the learned Advocate for the petitioner
as to whether petitioner will like to comply with the undertaking
filed before this Court, the learned Advocate exhibited the attitude
of his client by saying that the Government should file contempt
proceedings for not complying with the undertaking filed before this
Court.
4. This
Court is of the considered opinion that the High Court cannot and
must not render any assistance to a person like the petitioner who
has no respect for his own undertaking given before this very Court
and on this short ground, the petition is dismissed and it is
dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
[RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.]
jani
Top