Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1152/2001 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1152 of 2001
=========================================================
NATVERSINH
BHIKHUSINH ZALA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DJ BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 19/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
It
is noticed from the averments made in the petition and also from the
relief prayed for by the petitioner that the service of the
petitioner has been terminated with effect from 15.12.2000. The
petitioner has alleged that the action of the respondent is illegal
and arbitrary. The petitioner has prayed for direction against the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits.
In
view of the allegations made in the petition and relief prayed for,
it is apparent that adjudication would necessitate as well as
documentary evidence. It is also apparent that disputed questions of
fact are involved and raised in the petition, the resolution of which
would also necessitate evidence. The petitioner has claimed that he
was working as driver with the respondent. Thus, the petitioner has
available unto him alternative statutory remedy where the claim of
the petitioner is required to be adjudicated and the process of
leading oral evidence can be undertaken. In that view of the matter
the petition does not deserve to be entertained and the petitioner is
required to be relegated to the alternative statutory remedy, more
particularly because, as aforesaid, the adjudication and resolution
of the petitioner’s claim mandates oral and documentary evidence.
Learned
Counsel for the petitioner had, on earlier occasion (i.e. yesterday
during the hearing) requested for short adjournment to take
instruction from his client as to whether his client would prefer to
withdraw the petition with a view to approach alternative remedy.
However, today when the petition is taken up for hearing learned
advocate for the petitioner is not present. Hence, the petition is
dismissed for default.
(K.M.Thaker,
J.)
dks
Top