Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/23/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9113 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23 of 2010
=========================================
SUKHIBEN
WD/O NATHUBHAI GOPALBHAI & 5 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
P
R KAPASIYAVALA, CHAIRMAN, THE WEST & SPORTS CLUB LIMITED & 5
- Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
JIGAR P RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
NM KAPADIA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Respondent(s) : 2,
MR PRANAV DAVE, AGP for Respondent(s) : 3 -
6.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 10/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Shri Nimish Kapadia, learned advocate waives service of notice
of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1, Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned
advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.
2 and Shri Pranav Dave, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule
on behalf of respondents nos. 3 to 6.
2. With
the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. By
way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
10/07/2009 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department, State of Gujarat in dismissing Revision Application No.
17/2008 on the ground of delay and not condoning the delay in
preferring the Revision Application challenging the order passed by
the Taluka Development Officer, Choryasi dated 19/05/2004.
4. After
making elaborate submissions on merits of the case, the learned
advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents have stated at the
bar that they have no objection if the delay caused in preferring the
Revision Application challenging the order passed by the Taluka
Development Officer, Choryasi dated 19/05/2004 is condoned and the
Revision Application is decided and disposed of by the learned
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat on merits.
In view of the above, they do not invite any further reasoned order.
5. Under
the circumstances, this Court is not further assigning any reasoned
order while allowing the present Special Civil Application and
condoning the delay in preferring the Revision Application and
directing the learned revisional authority to decide and dispose of
the Revision Application in accordance with law on its own merits.
6. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and the
broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department, State of Gujarat dated 10/7/2009 in Revision Application
No. 17/2008 in not condoning the delay in preferring the Revision
Application challenging the order of the Taluka Development Officer,
Choryasi dated 19/07/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and the
delay in preferring the Revision Application is hereby condoned.
Now, the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of
Gujarat to decide and dispose of Revision Application No. 17/2008
afresh in accordance with law on its own merits.
7. With
this, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to cost.
CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 9113/2010
Now
so far as Civil Application No. 9113/2010 filed by the West End
Sports Club Limited, Director of the West End Sports Club Limited is
concerned, Shri Vakil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant of the said application has stated at the bar that
appropriate suitable observation may be made that this Court has not
expressed anything on merits with respect to the authority of Shri
P.R. Kapasiwala to appear on behalf of West End Sports Club Limited
and it will be open for West End Sports Club Limited to appear
through the authorised person may be an advocate.
It
is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits
with respect to the authorised person, who can represent the West End
Sports Club Limited and in the subsequent proceedings and/or any
other proceedings it will be open for any other authorised Officer
to represent the West End Sports Club Limited for which this Court
has not expressed any opinion on merits.
In
view of the above, no order in the Civil Application.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top