Gujarat High Court High Court

Kantilal vs District on 16 September, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Kantilal vs District on 16 September, 2008
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/11511/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11511 of 2008
 

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


 

KANTILAL
PRABHUDASBHAI DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & 5 - Petitioners
 

Versus
 

DISTRICT
COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondents
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MS
AMRITA AJMERA for Petitioners : 1
- 6. 
None for
Respondents : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/09/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

The
heirs and legal representatives of workman have approached this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of
mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, as despite their
being an Award passed in their favour way back on 6.1.2004 and a
recovery certificate issued by the Competent Authority on 2.2.2007
to the respondent No. 1 for recovering an amount of Rs.4,44,194/-,
no action whatsoever have been initiated by either respondents.

It
is indeed unfortunate that respondent No. 1, who is under an
obligation to comply with the order and effect the recovery, has
done absolutely nothing and S.T. Corporation respondent No. 2
against whom the Award is passed, has also done nothing.

The
Court therefore is constrained to observe that both the respondents
were expected to act promptly in such matters. The inaction as
alleged by the petitioners deserve deprecation.

Notice
returnable on 25.9.2008. Ms. Pathak, learned AGP waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is expected that by
returnable date the respondent No. 2 shall place on record the
reasons for non-compliance with the Award dated 6.1.2004 and
respondent No. 1 shall also file an affidavit indicating as to when
did its office receive communication for effecting the recovery and
what steps were taken by his office, failing which, it goes without
saying that serious view shall be taken in the matter. Direct
service is permitted qua respondent No. 2.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)

pallav

   

Top