Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/811/2002 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 811 of 2002
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6869 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
No
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
No
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 ? No
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No
=========================================
SUBHADRABEN
R VALAND WD/O R.S VALAND
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR AM RAVAL
for the Appellant
MR
NJ SHAH, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KM
SHETH for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 24/06/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. Board
has been revised. No one appears for the appellant.
2. We
have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel Mr. K.M. Sheth for
respondent No.3.
3. The
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated
26.7.2002, by recording the following findings:-
“I have heard Mr.Raval in detail. In my view, the order of the Municipality in denying interest to the petitioner is not required to be interfered with, firstly because so far as the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.7226 of 1997 is concerned, they had approached this Court as back as in the year 1997, i.e. immediately, moment the cause of action arose and the matter was disposed of by this Court on 24th July, 1999. Even though the petitioner was similarly situated, he never chose to approach this Court in the year 1997. Instead, he waited for a long time for filing this petition, as the petition was filed in the year 2000. During the entire period, the petitioner had never raised any claim before the authority. Even a simple money claim would have been time barred even by the aforesaid period. Thereafter, after a long period, he approached this Court by filing the petition in 2000 and this Court had merely recommended the petitioner to make representation. This Court has never given any direction to the authority to pay even the benefit on the basis of the Fourth Pay Commission Recommendations, to the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner was permitted to make representation and, ultimately his representation was accepted by the Municipality by granting him the benefit of pay scale and it is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.28,363/- is paid to the petitioner. Since the petitioner himself had not approached the Court or even the authority for a long time, and subsequently, the Municipality has suffered financial crisis, it cannot be said that the aforesaid amount was not paid to the petitioner with a deliberate intention and even the petitioner himself was not vigilant enough to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievance. It is also required to be noted that, ultimately, on the representation of the petitioner, the Municipality itself paid him the aforesaid monetary benefit and now, so far as the interest is concerned, in my view, under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim parity of his claim with other employees, who were vigilant enough to approach this Court promptly.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the financial crisis which the Municipality is now facing, which might not have been faced by the Municipality at an earlier point of time, no interference of this Court is called for in a petition filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have also given serious consideration to the argument of Mr.Raval that the petitioner is not interested in the interest amount and he may donate the said amount to the Municipality. Mr.Raval submitted that since the petitioner is also moved by the financial crisis of the Municipality therefore, he is making this gesture. In my view, in such academic matters, writ of this Court cannot be issued and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid argument of Mr.Raval deserves to be rejected.
It is required to be noted that even considering the conduct of the petitioner, no relief can be given to the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has annexed copy of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.7226 of 1997, he has deliberately suppressed the material document from this Court by not annexing the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9575 of 2000. If the petitioner can annex the order passed in another Special Civil Application, on which serious reliance has been placed, it was absolutely necessary on his part to annex the order passed by this Court in his own very matter, wherein this Court permitted him to make representation. Even looking to the conduct of the petitioner in not producing the necessary document before this Court, no relief can be given to the petitioner in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
The petition, in my view,is thoroughly misconceived and it is dismissed at the admission stage.”
The learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
4. We
do not find any merits in this appeal. The appeal fails and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.)
Sd/-
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top