Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1460/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1460 of 2004
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1361 of 2003
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1501 of 2004
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1211 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
AMRELI
NAGAR PALIKA - Appellant(s)
Versus
BHANUBEN
ODHAVJIBHAI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PV HATHI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR GM JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. Both
these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated
24.12.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Applications No.1211/2003 & 1361/2003 preferred under Articles
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India whereby, both the said
petitions were partly allowed.
2. We
have heard learned counsel for the parties. In a recent decision of
the Full Bench rendered in Special Civil Application No.12382/2010
with 15308/2010 dated 28.07.2011, it has been held that Letters
Patent Appeal against petition preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable.
3. In
a similar matter being L.P.A. No.1204/2004, this Court was required
to consider a similar issue. The following observations were made by
this Court in Para-2 of its judgment dated 23.09.2011;
“2. In
view of the recent decision of the Full Bench in Special Civil
Application No. 12382 of 2010 with Special Civil Application No.
15308 of 2010 delivered on 28.7.2011, holding that Letters Patent
Appeal against petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is not maintainable. Only on this ground, the Letters Patent
Appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, Mr.P.V.Hathi, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the Full Court
decision in case of Pathan Umravkhan Amirkhan v. Shakinaben wd/o.
Umravmiya and others 2004(3) GLR 2329 whereby it is held
that Labour Court has no jurisdiction. Since we are dismissing the
Appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable, we cannot enter
into the question of merits of case. Moreover, it is relevant to
point out here that controversy on merits involved in this Appeal is
covered by the decision of earlier judgment of this Court in LPA No.
1205 to 1213 of 2003 decided on 28.11.2003 and LPA No.1079 of 2003
decided on 25.11.2003. But since LPA is not maintainable, we have not
entered into rival contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties. This Appeal is devoid of any merits. It is accordingly
dismissed.”
4. In
view of the above, both these appeals stand dismissed on the ground
on non-maintainability, without entering into the rival contentions
of learned counsel for the parties. The appeals are, accordingly,
dismissed.
[V.M.
SAHAI, J.]
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top