Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2029/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2029 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6167 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9800 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2029 of 2010
=========================================================
NANA
KERALA PIYAT KHETI UTKARSH MANDAL - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BP GUPTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MRS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
RAJESH M.CHAUHAN for MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – writ petitioner
against the order dated 14th June 2010 passed by the
learned Single Judge.
By
the said order, the learned Single Judge observed that there is no
final adjudication made by the office of the respondent – Additional
Commissioner, who has simply observed to file civil suit for recovery
and, thereby, allowed the appellant to raise all the contentions in
the said civil suit that may be filed against the appellant.
Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the
amount which was due as was shown by the authorities was later on
withdrawn. Such decision was later on rescinded pursuant to the order
dated 17th November 2009 passed by the
Chairman-cum-District Development Officer, Surendranagar, whereby he
had come to the conclusion that on the basis of the record, it
appears that the amount of Rs.9,76,061=00 is not to be recovered from
the petitioner.
We
have heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and
the respondents.
It
appears that the appellant earlier moved before this Court in Special
Civil Application No.24262/2005 against the order of recovery. The
said case remained pending for hearing for about four years and, on
10th February 2009, the appellant withdrew the petition
without any liberty on the ground that the Chairman-cum-District
Development Officer has prima facie come to the conclusion that no
recovery is to be made from the appellant. No observation was made by
this Court nor any liberty was given to prefer a second time writ
petition. When the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the Forest
Conservator, Rural Development Department, Gujarat State, he, by his
order dated 19th March 2010, ordered to initiate recovery
proceedings by filing a civil suit against the appellant. The said
order was challenged by the appellant, in which, the impugned order
was passed by the learned Single Judge on 14th June 2010.
From
the aforesaid facts, it will be evident that the writ petitions were
withdrawn by the appellant on the ground that the
Chairman-cum-District Development Office had, prima facie, come to
the conclusion that no recovery was to be made from the appellant and
no final decision was taken. This apart, the question whether any
amount is to be recovered from any person, and for that, if any
individual or officer of the State intends to prefer a civil suit, no
court can issue any direction preventing a party to prefer a suit
before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Whether such suit as may
be filed has merit or not, cannot be presumed.
For
the said reason, if the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere
with the impugned order, no case is made out to interfere with the
same. The Appeal and the Civil Application are accordingly dismissed.
No cost.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
CJ.)
(J.B.Pardiwala,
J.)
/moin
Top