Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/495/2010 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 495 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
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 ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
HAREKRISHNA
ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VIRAL V DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
NIKUNT RAVAL ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 04/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.Nikunt Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service
of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Looking to the issue involved
in the petition, the same is taken up for final hearing.
2. Heard
Mr. Viral V. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.Nikunt Raval, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
3. The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to
produce certified copy of the interim order dated 22.04.2003 before
this Court. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2003 and to remand the matter
back to the respondent No.1 for deciding afresh.
4. It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not received
the impugned order dated 22.04.2003. Even on application being made
by the petitioner, the certified copy of the order was not supplied
to the petitioner. Mr.Dave on instruction states that at the time of
filing this petition, the certified copy of the order was received by
the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has received the impugned
order or not, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided
in this petition. It is required to be decided by the Appropriate
Authority. Even otherwise, an alternative remedy is available to the
petitioner and the petitioner should challenge the impugned order
before the Appellate Authority. The question of limitation arises as
the delay was caused in preferring appeal before the Appellate
Authority. Now, however, the petitioner’s explanation is that the
certified copy of the order is received by the petitioner and hence
the limitation is counted from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the order.
5. In
above view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to avail the
alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal against the impugned
order. If such an application is filed along with delay condonation
application, the Appropriate Authority would consider the same
sympathetically and in view of the fact that the certified copy of
the order is received by the petitioner. Appropriate Authority would
consider the merits of the order and pass an appropriate order. While
dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
6. It
is made clear that the Court has not gone into the merits of the
matter and has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
7. Subject
to the aforesaid direction and observation, this petition is,
accordingly, disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(K.A.Puj,J.)
rakesh/
Top