Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/92620/2000 4/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 926 of 2000
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1882 of 1998
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
MARUTI
EDUCATION TRUST - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Appellant.
Ms.TANUJA KACHCHI, ASST GOVT PLEADER for Respondent(s)
: 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 23/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
The
present Letters Patent Appeal is filed being aggrieved by oral order
dated 10th April 2000, whereby the learned Judge was
pleased to dismiss the Special Civil Application and discharge
notice. The learned Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay
a sum of Rs.400/- as costs of the petition to the respondent. The
case of the petitioner was that the communication dated 2nd
September 1997, whereby the representation/ application dated 14th
August 1997 was rejected, was a non speaking order, was required to
be quashed and set aside and it was required to be held by this Court
that the petitioner-institution is entitled to receive grant. The
learned Judge, after taking into consideration the submissions made
by the learned advocate for the petitioner and after taking into
consideration the two decisions, which were relied upon by the
learned advocate, which were found distinguishable as set out in
paragraphs 7 and 8, found that the petition has no merit. The
learned Judge also observed that,
?S .. .. It is
not the case where the petitioner-trust is identically
situated. Otherwise also, on merits, the petitioner once
has accepted this conditional order it has to abide by it. The
petitioner when accepted this condition clearly goes to show that it
wanted to serve the people of the area without taking any grant.
Once it has been decided to serve the people, I fail to see what for
this claim has been lodged by it. Those who really want to
serve the people and those who are bona fide and genuine persons and
want to serve the people never bothers about this grant etc..
The very fact that the petitioner is claiming for grant goes to
show that its real purpose and object is not of serving the people
but for some other object and purpose. It is a case where the
representation filed by the petitioner was not accepted and rightly
it is not accepted. I do not consider it to be necessary in the
present case to decide whether the order impugned in this
special civil application is passed in quasi-judicial
proceedings or not.?? (emphasis supplied)
2. Learned
advocate, Ms.Sejal Mandavia for the appellant submitted that this
Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) by judgement and order dated 5th
July 2006 in Special Civil Application No.6381 of 1998 and allied
matters, has issued certain directions to the State Government. She
submitted that if the case of the appellant is also directed to be
considered in light of those directions, the appellant will rest
contented.
The
directions issued by this Court are contained in para 18 of the
judgement, which are reproduced hereunder for ready perusal:
?S(i)
The Government shall issue a G.R. laying down its policy for
considering the cases as special cases for conversion from
non-grant-in-aid to grant-in-aid institutions. Such a G.R. shall
be issued along the line of the affidavit-in reply filed by Shri
P.Panneervel on 8th March, 2006. This shall be done
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
In
all future cases, application of interested institutions shall be
considered by the competent authority applying the guidelines so
laid down by the Government.
While
considering such applications, either accepting or rejecting, the
authorities shall record and communicate the applicant its brief
reasons for the conclusion.
The
applications of all the petitioners except those wherein the
institutions have been closed down will be considered by the
Government in light of the policy that may be circulated. Such
consideration shall be prospective and on the basis of the
Government policy being framed. Such consideration shall be
expeditious and the concerned institutions will be communicated
the outcome thereof within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
Till
the Government formulates its policy, the interim injunction
granted by this Court by the order dated 13.2.2006 not to grant
any further applications to any of the institutions shall
continue. It is, however, clarified that once the Government
policy is formulated as mentioned above, it will be open for the
Government to consider all cases on the basis of such policy.??
3. The
present Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 10th April 2000. As record stands, the
order does not warrant any interference. That being so, the Letters
Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly
dismissed. Notice of admission is discharged.
However,
the request of the learned advocate is found reasonable and hence it
is directed that in the event the appellant herein approaches the
Government with a fresh application/ representation, his case should
be considered in light of the directions given by this Court in the
above judgement and order dated 5th July 2006 in Special
Civil Application No.6381 of 1998. It goes without saying that the
Government will consider the case of the appellant/ petitioner on its
own merits in accordance with law and if the directions issued by
this Court are applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)
(K.M. THAKER, J.)
karim
Top