Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/4184/2004 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 4184 of 2004
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 545 of 2004
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2180 of 2000
with
LETTRS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 545 of
2004
==============================================================
KANTIBHAI
KOYABHAI DAMOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RK MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 3,
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) :
4,
=====================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date
: 10/10/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA)
The
applicant ? original appellant has challenged the judgment and
order dated 9th April, 2001 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this court dismissing his writ petition i.e. Special Civil
Application No.2180 of 2000 filed against the order of termination.
The said appeal is hopelessly barred by period of limitation of 954
days. For condoning the said delay, the present application is
filed. After the dismissal order dated 9th April, 2001
passed by the learned Single Judge, the applicant ? petitioner had
immediately applied for certified copy of the order on 16th
April, 2001 which was received on 13th February, 2002 but
did not file the above appeal till 24th March, 2004. For
condoning such a gross delay of 954 days, the ground which is sought
to be made out in this application is that after contacting his
advocate on 14th March, 2003, the applicant came to know
that he could have filed appeal against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. Therefore, he had
filed this appeal. Plea of ignorance of law is no ground for
condoning such a gross delay of 954 days. It may be stated that as
per his own statement made on oath in this application, he was told
by his advocate for the first time on 14th March, 2003
that he can file appeal before this court against the said order of
the learned Single Judge but even thereafter, he waited for a period
of more than one year and filed the above appeal only on 24th
March, 2004. Thus, the gross delay of 954 days is not at all
explained. On such ground, delay could not have been condoned.
2. Before
parting, we must state that with a view that substantial justice
should be done to the litigant and not the technical one, we have
also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th
April, 2001 dismissing the writ petition and the termination order
passed by the disciplinary authority. Perusing the same, it clearly
appears that the applicant was a Constable in B.S.F. and he was
subjected to summary trial by Security Force Court for serious
charges of molestation and outraging the modesty of a woman and using
criminal force to Ramilaben, wife of another constable Saitanbhai of
his own Battalion and using criminal force to another woman, which
was punishable under Section 352 I.P.C. From the charges levelled
against him and found to be proved during the domestic inquiry, it
seems that the applicant was such a person who could not be retained
in service in a disciplined force like B.S.F. Thus,
on merits also, the applicant had no case.
3. Even
if the appeal was within the period of limitation, then also this
court would not have interfered with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing his writ petition.
4. In
view of the above discussion, this application for condonation of
delay is dismissed. Rule issued on it stands discharged.
Letters
Patent Appeal is dismissed as it is time-barred.
(
B.J. Shethna, J. )
(
M.C. Patel, J. )
hki
Top