Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/57/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 57 of 2011
=====================================
BEENABEN
GANPATBHAI THAKKAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR UMANG K CHOKSI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 11/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 The
Court is unable to believe that the petitioner did not know about the
order dated 30th June 2004 until they met the learned
advocate on 1st January 2011. In the List of Events, it
is stated by the petitioner that:
“4. No
response and reply but have approached resp. 3 so many times but only
response that to wait for some times for direction from resp. 2, the
petitioner wait so many time but no information and no response at
last on 1/1/2011, the petitioner approached advocate Mr. Umang K.
Choksi, who practices in stamp duty department, Documentation
work, Revenue Work, Registration Work and as per his information he
replied that the printed order was passed by resp. 4 in the year 2004
as per the register note and the person who passed printed order
named Mr. M.D. Joshi is expired last year and there is no post of
Collector of stamps, Ahmedabad from 2005 till today and at now the
case papers are with resp. 5 who have now jurisdiction for
Municipality Limit.”
2.0 The
aforesaid averments do not inspire confidence inasmuch as, the
petitioner received the first Notice as early as on
16th
January 1999 and thereafter, he received another Notice on 19th
December 2000. Thereafter, he filed Reply to that Notice on 16th
January 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that they contended
before the authorities that the petitioner is entitled to get the
benefit of G.R. dated 3rd July 1998 bearing No. MTP
1092-3531/H.1. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the
petitioner received another Notice dated 5th February
2004, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘G’, to which again,
the petitioner filed Reply on 25th February 2004. It is
thereafter, that the petitioner went into slumber and woke up from
the slumber only on 1st January 2011. The reason is also
not known that why did he wake up from the slumber only in 2011. As
no satisfactory explanation is given, as to why he woke up from the
slumber only on 1st January 2011, the petition is not
entertained and the same is dismissed.
2.1 However,
it is clarified that, non-entertainment of this petition must not be
construed to mean that the Court has examined the merits and found no
merits in the matter. As and when the petitioner’s case is required
to be considered by the authorities, the same be considered in
accordance with law, on its own merits.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top