Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1342/2005 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 1342 of 2005
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12651 of 2004
==============================================================
DEEPAK
N DESAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
SHAILESH
J. ANJARIA & 1 - Opponent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MA PAREKH for
Petitioner No(s).: 1.
None
for Respondent No(s).:
1,2.
==============================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA
Date
: 23/08/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA)
This
application is filed under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act.
The complaint of the applicant is that despite the direction given by
this court on two occasions to consider the representation that may
be made by the applicant for grant of promotion, the opponents have
not decided the same within stipulated time and have taken the
decision after considerable lapse of period. It is further the
grievance of the applicant that even the reply which is given at a
belated stage by the opponents is not very clear and they have
denied the promotion on the ground which is not relevant for
considering the eligibility of the applicant for promotion.
We
have heard Mr. MA Parekh ld. Advocate for the applicant. We have also
perused the contents of the application together with the annexures,
it appears that the applicant had taken voluntarily reversion in
June, 1994 on account of some compelling domestic circumstances.
However, later on, according to him, he was never considered for
promotion to the higher posts. He, therefore, approached this court
by filing a petition being Special Civil Application NO. 2542 of
2004, wherein, the ld. Single Judge of this Court (Coram: A.L. Dave,
J.) on 26.3.2004 passed order directing the applicant to make
appropriate representation to the concerned authority and the
authority was directed to take appropriate decision thereon strictly
in accordance with law.
Since
the authority did not take decision on the representation preferred
by the applicant, another petition was filed by the applicant being
Special Civil Application No. 12651 of 2004, wherein, the ld. Single
Judge of this Court (Coram: M.R. Shah, J.) by order dated 1.10.2004
directed the applicant to make a fresh representation and also
directed the opponents to decide the said representation as early as
possible and not later than expiry of two month’s period after the
receipt of representation. It also appears from the record that since
within the stipulated time, the decision was not taken, the applicant
submitted a remainder to the authorities. Ultimately, by
communication dated 25.2.2005, the opponent intimated its decision to
the applicant. We have perused the said communication, which shows
that the applicant was even granted personal hearing by the concerned
committee and he was explained in detail that as and when general
promotion would be granted, his case would be considered on its
merits. Later on, the applicant again made correspondence with the
opponents on the issue and ultimately on 2.7.2005 a communication was
addressed to the ld. Advocate for the applicant that applicant’s
case was not considered for promotion since it appeared to the
concerned authority that there were about 20 officers senior to the
applicant and, therefore, there was not reason for granting him
promotion at that time.
According
to the Ld. Advocate for applicant, even giving such vague reply would
amount to not complying with the direction of this court and,
therefore, the opponents have committed contempts of the court. We
are not impressed by such contention. It appears that pursuant to
the direction given by this court, though at the belated stage, the
opponents have duly complied with the directions and have decided the
representation of the applicant strictly on merits and in accordance
with law. If that be so, there is no reason for us to hold that the
opponents have flouted the directions of this Court. There is no
merit in this application and it is dismissed.
(KSHITIJ
R. VYAS, J.)
(AKSHAY
H. MEHTA, J.)
mandora/
Top