Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10175/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10175 of 2008
=========================================================
MANISHBHAI
SHANTUBHAI PATEL & 8 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 11 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JITENDRA M PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 9.
MR SATYAM CHHAYA ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
12.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr.J.M.Patel for the petitioners and learned AGP
Mr.Satyam Chhaya for the State Government on advance copy. In view of
the controversy involved in the petition, it is not necessary to
issue notice to the private respondents.
The
petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.04.2008 passed by the
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. By
the said order, interim relief granted earlier pending revision
application came to be vacated. The order records that such interim
relief was granted on 12.03.2007. It was to operate upto 23.07.2007.
Since no one had remained present on behalf of the petitioners on
23.07.2007, the authority vacated the stay on this short ground of
absence of the petitioners or their advocate.
Learned
advocate Mr.J.M.Patel for the petitioners drew my attention to the
averments made by the petitioners in the petition to the effect that
in fact, learned advocate for the petitioners was present on
23.07.2007 had also carried application for adjournment. However,
since the Secretary was not available on that day, such application
could not be tendered.
I
am not going further with respect to the exact reason why no hearing
could take place on 23.07.2007. However, in the facts of the case, I
find that when the petitioners were not stated to be absent on
previous occasions and if at all from the very worst, there was some
communication gap on 23.07.2007, order of vacating interim relief
granted earlier should not have been passed, that too, on merits.
Interim relief should not have been vacated only on this ground and
for the limited purpose of hearing of the application for interim
relief afresh on merits, the impugned proceedings are remanded. The
Secretary shall hear the application for interim relief of the
petitioners on merits unmindful of the impugned order. Until such
time it is so done, status quo as on today shall be maintained.
The
petitioners shall appear before the Secretary on 05.09.2008. Notice
of such hearing shall also be issued on the respondents. Petitioners,
however, will not insist as being served with such notice. It will be
open for the Secretary to fix another date of hearing if said date is
not convenient to him.
With
above observations and directions, petition is disposed of.
(
Akil Kureshi, J. )
kailash
Top