Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4213/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4213 of 2011
=========================================================
BRUHAD
GUJARAT KELAVANI UTTEJAK MANDAL - RUNS AND MANAGED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BIPIN P JASANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JANAK RAVAL ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 04/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Heard Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2.
Present petition is preferred seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
“6(A)
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
29.12.2005 passed by the respondent District Education Officer
raising the recovery of amount Rs.3,50,150/- being violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and against the
principles of natural justice.
(B)
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondent District Education Officer to
repay the amount of Rs.1,58,520/- which was recovered unauthorizedly
with interest to the petitioner school forthwith.
(C)……..
(D)……..”
3.
As can be seen from the relief prayed for by the petitioner, the
petitioner has preferred present petition against order dated
29.12.2005. Differently put, the petition is preferred almost after
more than 5 years against the order which was passed way back in
December 2005.
4.
In view of the said delay in challenging the order, the Court is not
inclined to interfere with the said order at this stage.
5.
It is, however required to be noted and clarified that the petitioner
has preferred petition and challenged the order on ground of
violation of principles of natural justice. It prima facie appears
that the decision to recover specified amount was taken and order was
passed without any Notice or hearing. However, since the facts which
may come out from the record of the respondent is not available on
the record of present petition, therefore any view
with regard to the alleged violation of principle of natural
justice cannot be formed, at this stage.
6.
Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the
common order dated 31.3.2006 passed in SCA No.5771 of 2006 and allied
matters.
7.
The said order would not help the petitioner at this stage for the
simple reason that in the said case the petitioner had approached the
Court immediately when the cause of action arose i.e. in 2006.
Similar is the case in respect of order dated 30.11.2009 passed in
SCA No.11345 of 2009. In the said case the petitioner had approached
the Court, in 2009, against the order dated 30.5.2009 and the order
in the petition came to be passed on 30.11.2009.
8.
Whereas in present case the petitioner has preferred petition after
more than five years.
9.
For the said reason the Court is not inclined to entertain the
petition and also not inclined to enter into the merits of the
grievance made by the petitioner.
10.
Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner has already approached the High Power Committee,
however the said committee has not taken any decision as regards the
representation and grievance made by the petitioner.
11.
It is not clear as to whether the said Committee is authorized –
competent to entertain any application or representation against the
competent authority’s order regarding recovery or not. However, since
the petitioner has already approached the said High Power Committee,
learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that appropriate
direction to the Committee to pass order with regard to the
petitioner’s application / representation may be passed.
12.
Having regard to the said submission it appears that
the petition may be disposed of with the observation the observation
that the application / representation made by the petitioner against
the communication dated 29.12.2005, which might be pending before the
High Power Committee, may be decided as early as possible and
preferably within 8 weeks from today. The decision on such
representation will not be a cause to challenge the same i.e.
decision on the representation.
13.
With the aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of.
14.
It is reiterated and clarified that in view of the delay and laches
the petition has not been entertained. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.TAHKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top