Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Keshubhai vs State on 16 November, 2011
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/16920/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16920 of 2011
 

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

 

KESHUBHAI
PARBATBHAI PATEL PROPRIETOR OF OMKAR TIMBER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/11/2011  
ORAL ORDER

Mr.N.K.Majmudar,
learned advocate for the petitioners has moved a draft amendment. The
same is granted and may be carried out, within a period of two days
from today.

Heard
Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is
submitted by him that the petitioners were granted a contract for
cutting of trees by way of auction. The petitioners deposited an
amount of Rs.4,32,800/- towards the contract, as required. On
25.10.2007, the petitioners were informed that a de-novo
process would take place. The petitioners filed a Civil Suit and on
the application below Exhibit-5, a status-quo order came to be passed
by way of interim injunction. The Suit was later withdrawn by the
petitioners, as agreed upon by the petitioners and the respondents.
Subsequently, permission was granted to the petitioners for cutting
trees as per the contract, as a special case. However, by
communication dated 21.6.2011 the petitioners were informed not to
transport the timber outside the Range. By communication dated
20.06.2011 a decision was taken by the respondent to suspend the
operation of the contract. It is further submitted that this decision
regarding suspension of contract was revoked by communication dated
23.09.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners were orally informed not to
cut trees. The petitioners have paid a further amount by way of
enhancement of the contract amount by 10%, as per communication dated
11.05.2011. The learned advocate for the petitioners further submits
that in spite of the revocation of the suspension of the contract, a
decision has been unilaterally taken by the respondents by
communications dated 17.10.2011 and 20.10.2011 to cancel the
contract. It is submitted that the petitioners were not heard before
taking these decisions. Though, by communication dated 11.11.2011,
the petitioners have been informed regarding the decision to conduct
a fresh auction and have been called to present their case, the said
decision has been taken without granting an opportunity of hearing to
them. It is further submitted, that it has not been pointed out that
the petitioners have committed any breach of the conditions of the
contract. Moreover, the impugned decision has been taken after
payment of the full amount of the contract by the petitioners.

Notice
returnable on 13.12.2011.

Status-quo,
as it exists today, qua the contract of the petitioners shall be
maintained, till then.

In
addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also
permitted.

(Smt.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.)

~gaurav~

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.189 seconds.