Gujarat High Court High Court

Jabbarbhai vs Additional on 8 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Jabbarbhai vs Additional on 8 November, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/25810/2006	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25810 of 2006
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25811 of 2006
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

JABBARBHAI
HAKIMBHAI HASANJI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE & MINERAL & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
RAMNANDAN SINGH for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/12/2006 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Upon
hearing Mr. Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Desai, learned AGP,
appearing upon advance copy, it appears that it is not in dispute
that the petitioner has approached to this Court for challenging the
order passed as back as in the year 1999 by preferring the present
petition in the year 2006 and there is a delay operating against the
petitioner.

However
Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that as the criminal case was pending on the alleged ground of
production of false document and the petitioner has been acquitted
only in the year 2006 after the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the
present petition is preferred.

In
my view, such acquittal may have the bearing qua the allegations
against the petitioner and therefore, the cloud at the most can be
said as clear qua the conduct of the petitioner. But therefore, the
delay which is caused throughout cannot be leniently viewed for
pursuing the application, which was initially rejected in the year
1993 and subsequently the appeal came to be rejected in the year
1999. If the petitioner is eligible, he may apply in accordance
with law for the fresh lease, but the application which was earlier
made and disposed of cannot allowed to be reopened.

In
view of the above, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to make fresh
application in accordance with law. If fresh application is made,
the ground of pendency of Criminal case or the allegation of bogus
document, which was subject matter of criminal case No. 1314/98
would not operate as a bar to the petitioner in pursuing the
application, if otherwise permissible in law.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top