Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6746/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6746 of 2008
=========================================================
PRAKASH
GULABSINH - Petitioner
Versus
DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 1 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BIPIN I MEHTA for Petitioner:MR VICKY B MEHTA for
Petitioners: 1,
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent : 1,
MR RC
PATHAK for Respondent : 2,
MS MONA B MEHTA for Respondents:
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 14/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Ms. Mandavia, learned counsel and Mr. Pathak, learned counsel waives
service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.
The
workman is constrained to file this petition seeking appropriate
direction to respondent No. 1 as recovery certificate is still
remained to be implemented and the amount mentioned thereunder so
far not been recovered.
Ms.
Mandavia, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that
respondent No. 2 keep sending letters for whiling away time under
pretext that Special Civil Application is pending.
Shri
Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits
that respondent no. 1 is intending to have the ex-parte award as a
result whereof, certificate is issued.
The
Court is not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Pathak with
regard to adjourning the matter and/or giving some time. As could be
seen from the facts, which are emerging from the record, which go to
show that the certificate, which was issued for recovering the
amount mentioned thereunder is dated 5.4.2007 and no action has been
taken so far challenging the ex-parte award. In view of this,
following directions deserve to be issued while disposing of the
matter.
The
respondent No. 1 shall take all steps necessary for recovering the
amount mentioned in the recovery certificate in accordance with law
and said recovery shall be completed within a period of 90 days from
the receipt of writ of this Court. It goes without without saying
that the respondent No. 2 is at liberty to approach the appropriate
forum for appropriate relief under law, if permissible but under the
pretext of pendency of the proceedings, recovery proceedings shall
not be stalled. In other words, any prohibitory order, if at all,
are to be obtained, then respondent No. 2 will have to obtain the
same on or before 14.11.2008 and if no orders are obtained, then,
recovery proceedings shall be proceeded and completed within 3
months thereafter. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top