Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/5924/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5924 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 365 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5925 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 833 of 2010
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5944 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 824 of 2010
======================================
MINISTRY
OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
CIVIL APPLICATION Nos.5924 to 5937, 5939, 5941
& 5944 of 2010
MR
MK VAKHARIA, MS MEETA PANCHAL & MR PS CHAMPANERI for the
applicant.
MR NJ SHAH & MS MOXA THAKKAR, AGPs for Respondent
No.1.
None for Respondent Nos.2 - 4.
MR MP SHAH for Respondent
Nos.5 60.
CIVIL
APPLICATION Nos.5938 of 2010
MR
MK VAKHARIA for the applicant.
MR NJ SHAH, AGP for Respondent
No.1.
MR PARESH UPADHYAY for Respondent Nos.7 12.
CIVIL
APPLICATION Nos.5940 of 2010
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for the applicant.
MS MOXA THAKKAR, AGP for
Respondent No.1.
MR GM JOSHI for Respondent Nos.6 21.
CIVIL
APPLICATION Nos.5942 of 2010
MR
MK VAKHARIA for the applicant.
MR NJ SHAH, AGP for Respondent
No.1.
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent No.3.
MS
MP SHAH for Respondent Nos.5 52.
CIVIL
APPLICATION Nos.5943 of 2010
MR
MK VAKHARIA for the applicant.
MS MOXA THAKKAR, AGP for Respondent
No.1.
MR PARESH UPADHYAY for Respondent Nos.7 66.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 17/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. These
applications are made in the pending petitions and placed before this
Court pursuant to order dated 31st May 2010 made in the
Civil Applications of present applicants. Relevant part of order
dated 31.5.2010 reads as under:
2. According
to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the State Government has
not sent their proposal expeditiously and therefore the matter was
delayed and that the requirement of funds sought by the State
Government is of only Rs.16,89,28,590/- which has been in fact
reduced from earlier proposal of Rs.34,44,92,150/-. Therefore the
modification is sought by the applicant.
3. However,
the figure of Rs.34,44,92,150/- as reflected in the above order is in
fact taken from the order dated 26th February 2010 as
reproduced in the order dated 28th April 2010. Hence it
will not be appropriate for this Court to modify the said amount
which is reflected in the order dated 26th February 2010.
4. Therefore
it will be open to the applicant to take steps to modify the
aforesaid figure of Rs.34,44,92,150/- and also to take steps for
implementation of the order in question without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of both the parties in accordance with law.
2. Apparently
modification of the amount in question is denied only on the ground
that in previous order dated 26.2.2010 of this Court, while it was
seized of the matter, following observations were made:
Pursuant
to the previous order dated 09.02.2010, the proposal of the State
Government is stated to have been prepared and sent to the Central
Government vide letter dated 15/16.02.2010. The State Government is
stated to have roughly calculated salary component of the grant
claimed from the Central Government @ Rs. 19,000/- per month per
teacher and the total number of teachers are counted to be 1231. It
was stated that the sum of Rs. 34,44,92,150/- is claimed in the
proposal and the proposal is under consideration with the Central
Government. …………..
3. Now
by present applications, prayer is made to modify order dated
26.2.2010 by reducing the amount to the tune of Rs.16,89,28,590/- and
grant permission for processing such proposal as per the norms of
IEDSS Scheme in the interest of justice. It could not be disputed
that while another Court was seized of the main petitions this Court
cannot issue any direction in present set of Civil Applications. As
for modifying the figure, it was clear from plain reading of order
dated 26th February 2010 that statement made on behalf of
the State Government was recorded therein in context of the statement
made on behalf of present applicant that proposal claiming aforesaid
amount was under consideration. It was abundantly clear that neither
any direction nor any observation was made in that order; and the
statement made by learned counsel and only recorded in the order of
the Court, could not be modified by the Court. Therefore, the
applications are dismissed.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*malek
Top