Gujarat High Court High Court

Jayprakash vs Unknown on 1 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Jayprakash vs Unknown on 1 April, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/381/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 381 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3365 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

JAYPRAKASH
HARISHCHANDRA MOGHE - Applicant
 

Versus
 

HASMUKH
ADHIA & 3 - Opponents
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
KIRIT J MACWAN for
Applicant. 
MR M.R.MENGDEY, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponents
: 1 - 3. 
SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Opponent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 01/04/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

Heard
learned advocate Mr.Macwan for the applicant and learned
A.G.P.Mr.Mengdey for the opponents.

2. Learned
advocate Mr.Macwan says that now the decision is taken by the
opponent-authority, but, it is taken beyond the time limit fixed by
this Court. The decision is taken against the applicant and the
applicant would again be required to challenge that decision. The
applicant is, thus, required to litigate unnecessarily for justice.

3. We
have examined the affidavit-in-reply filed by Deputy Director,
Technical Education. There is compliance of the order, but late.
Non-compliance of the order within the time limit is sought to be
explained by stating that the question of challenging the order of
the learned Single Judge was under consideration, as is reflected in
the communication dated 23.12.2009.

4. The
affidavit-in-reply, however, only states that there was no willful
disobedience of the order and an unconditional apology is tendered.

5. The
Government machinery, impersonal as it is, sometimes moves slowly and
sluggishly. Now, as the decision is taken, though late, we do not
propose to initiate any action against the opponents, by accepting
their unconditional apology. The application would, thus, stand
disposed of while discharging notice, with no order as to costs.

[A.L.Dave,J.]

[Bankim
N.Mehta,J.]

(patel)

   

Top