Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14778/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14778 of 2010
=================================================
KIRITKUMAR
JAYRANCHOD UPADHYAY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
OFFICER & 7 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
Mr.AMIT
PANCHAL WITH Ms.SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1 -
8.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 22/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Pursuant
to order dated 19th November 2010, respondent
no.4-Kaushikkumar Bipinchandra Upadhyay, serving as a Senior Clerk in
R.P.T.P. Science School, Vallabh Vaidhyanagar is present before the
Court. Along with him, Ms.Harshaben Kaushikkumar Upadhyay, wife of
respondent no.4 is present before the Court. Along with her,
Ms.Tarkeshwari Bipinchandra Upadhyay, sister of respondent no.4 is
also present before the Court.
2. Respondents
no.4, 5 and 7 are confronted with photographs at pages 51, 52, 53 and
54 and they stated that this construction was carried out within
their knowledge. They also admitted before this Court that as seen
in the photograph at page 54, Police personnel were required to
remain present to see that no trouble is created to the petitioner in
undertaking construction (laying down of drainage line), which was
permitted on account of an order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of
2008 (below Exhibit 5) dated 8th December 2009, which was
subjected to appeal by the present respondents, which was dismissed
by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Nadiad by
order dated 9th march 2010 and the petition filed by some
of respondents herein was dismissed by this Court by order dated
12th April 2010.
3. Respondents
no.4, 5 and 7 were then confronted with the photographs at pages 55,
56, 57 and 58. All the three respondents present in the Court have
unanimously declared before the Court that mistake is committed and
they have destroyed the construction (the drainage line).
4. The
Court wanted to take a very serious view in the matter, but
respondent no.7 took the lead and stated before the Court that
indulgence be granted and they be pardoned for having committed this
mistake. Respondent no.4 joins her in making this request while
respondent no.5 maintains silence in the Court. It is further stated
by respondents no.4 and 7 that they will lay down drainage line as
was laid before, along with necessary centering work by using iron
rods, etc. as it was done before at their own cost. Taking into
consideration the fact that respondent no.4 is in service, serving as
a Senior Clerk in a school and taking into consideration the fact
that respondents no.5 and 6 are women, the Court had agreed to grant
indulgence on condition that the work of laying down drainage line
should be undertaken immediately and it should be completed as
expeditiously as possible and report of the work done be made to this
Court on daily basis. On any day, when the Court finds that work is
not undertaken in a bona fide manner with required speed, the Court
will pass further orders in the matter. The matter is kept at 04.30
PM on 23rd November 2010 to report the work undertaken and
the progress made thereafter.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top