Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1218/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1218 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2328 of 2009
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1258 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2368 of 2009
======================================
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
Versus
MADHUBEN
BIPINBHAI JOSHI AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
CIVIL APPLICATION
Nos.1218 to 1238 of 2010
MR
BY MANKAD for Petitioner.
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE for Respondent Nos.1
- 41.
MR RAHUL K DAVE for Respondent Nos.1 - 41.
MS MOXA
THAKKAR, AGP for Respondent Nos.42-43.
CIVIL
APPLICATION Nos.1239 to 1258 of 2010
MR
BY MANKAD for Petitioner.
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE for Respondent Nos.1
- 41.
MR RAHUL K DAVE for Respondent Nos.1 - 41.
MS MINI NAIR,
AGP for Respondent Nos.42-43.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 26/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The
applicant has prayed to condone delay of 119 days in preferring the
appeal mainly on the ground that, after obtaining copy of the
impugned judgment, letters had to be written to the Education
Department for instructions and guidance from the Government. The
Education Department had taken decision to prefer the appeals and
instructed the appellant to prefer the appeals by letter dated
4.9.2009 and thereafter immediately appeals were filed on 18.9.2009.
The applications were sought to be opposed by filing reply affidavit
of Ms.M.B.Joshi, stating, in substance, that the applicants were
althroughout aware of the impugned order and had, in fact,
participated in the proceedings of the appeals preferred from the
same order by the opponents.
2. However,
knowledge of the proceedings or further proceedings pursuant to the
impugned order cannot, by itself, be a ground not to condone delay.
It was submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Mankad that the applicants
had no alternative but to seek necessary instructions and approval
from the State Government which, in the nature of things, take a
little longer time and the appeal ought not to be thrown out only on
the ground of delay. He relied upon recent decision of the Supreme
Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan [(2008)
14 SCC 582].
3. In
view of above facts and submissions, although delay is not explained
in detail, it having been satisfactorily explained and the period
being short, the applications are allowed and Rule is made absolute
in each application with no order as to costs.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
(M.D.Shah,
J.)
*malek
Top