Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1070/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1070 of 2010
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3628 of 2009
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.
3027 of 1992
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4833 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1070
of 2010
=========================================================
ADMINISTRATOR
- Appellant
Versus
JOSHI
GAURISHANKAR NARANJIBHAI & 1 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
CL SONI for
Appellant.
MS MOXA THAKKER, AGP, for Respondent :
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 01/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
This
Letters Patent Appeal is preferred to challenge the order passed in
Civil Application No. 3628/2009 in Special Civil Application
No.3027/1992, on 2.3.2010, dismissing the application.
1.1 In
the Civil Application, following reliefs were sought:-
(A) be
pleased to admit and allow this application;
(B) be
pleased to direct the opponent No.2 to pay Rs.3,60,777/-, being the
amount of salary paid to the opponent No.1 for the period of 15
years and 8 months at the rate of Rs. 1919/- per month under the
interim order passed in Special Civil Application No. 3027 of 1992,
to the applicant as salary grant.
(C) —– ——-
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Soni for the applicant.
3. The
case of the appellant-original applicant is that the appellant is the
Administrator of Shishu Kunj School, which is being run on grant
given by the Government for the benefits of mentally challenged
children. Respondent No.1 was paid salary during the pendency of the
petition under the order of the Court and on dismissal of the
petition, the Court ought to have ordered him either to repay the
salary that he has received or at least, the Government should
recover the same.
4. Learned
advocate Mr.Soni has reiterated the grounds and stated that the
Government may be asked either to release more grant or to recover
the same as per the direction of the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order passed in the Civil Application.
5. We
do not find any reason nor the learned advocate for the appellant is
able to show a justifiable reason for interfering with the order of
the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has, while
dismissing the petition, observed that respondent No.1, Government
shall be at liberty to effect necessary recovery from the petitioner
in accordance with law. We are of the view that no Letters Patent
Appeal can be entertained in such a eventuality, where prayers made
are as under:-
(A) —– —-
(B) Be
pleased to quash and set aside and reverse the judgment and order
dated 2.3.2010 passed in Civil Application No.3628 of 2009 in Special
Civil Application No. 3027 of 1992 and further be pleased to allow
the said Civil Application and grant the prayers made therein + the
amount paid thereafter to respondent No.1 under the interim order
passed in Special Civil Application No.3027 of 1992, as salary grant,
special grant or on any other head, by exercising the powers under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(C) …. …. ….
6. The
issue under consideration is likely to raise a number of disputed
questions of fact. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this
Letters Patent Appeal. The appeal fails and stands dismissed.
Order
on C.A. No.4833/2010:
In
view of dismissal of the appeal, this civil application does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
[Bankim
N.Mehta,J.]
(patel)
Top