Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCAO/30912/0082 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3091 of 2008
======================================
NUMEDICO
CORPORATION & 1 - Petitioners
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO' SECRETARY & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
RM CHHAYA for Petitioners.
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 13/01/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the
memo dated 08.02.2008. The petitioner has also prayed for the
direction to the respondent No.1 to make an inquiry into the
incident complained of by the petitioner by way of representation
dated 09.02.2008 as regards the misuse of the vehicle under
detention.
This
Court has issued notice on 19.02.2008. Subsequent to the issuance
of notice, the vehicle was released on payment of Rs.23,625/-.
Mr.
R. M. Chhaya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that since appeal is provided against the impugned action /
decision, he will undertake to file the said appeal within 15 days
from today. In that view of the matter, prayer A no longer
survives. He has, however, submitted that the petitioner is
concerned so far as prayer B is concerned. He submitted that on
08.02.2008, when the petitioner’s temporary driver employed on daily
wages for 3 days along with some consultants for production going to
the factory at Mamsa, RTO officials stopped the car and pressurized
the driver to give false statement to the effect that they are using
the Car for the last one year. On refusal by the driver to give
such a false statement, the Officer, particularly, Mr. Ninama and
his staff behaved in bad manner and also abused the driver. He has
further submitted that the said Officer and his staff thereafter
illegally detained the Car and they prepared false papers and
documents. When request was made to issue receipt for detention of
Car, the same was issued to the driver after much reluctance.
Mr.
Chhaya has further submitted that on 09.02.2008, in the morning at
about 09.00 to 09.30 a.m., when the Manager of the petitioner was
going towards factory premises at Mamsa in hired Car, he saw the
said Car on the Highway. He immediately stopped the Car and asked
the person who was driving the Car. He gave his name as Mr. Boricha
and he was the staff member of the RTO Office, Bhavnagar. On his
inquiry, the said Mr. Boricha abused the Manager of the petitioner
and told him that he could do whatever he liked. The petitioner is
very much offended by these two incidents and hence, detailed
representation was made on 09.02.2008 to the Director / Commissioner
of Transport which is annexed at Annexure D.
Since
February 2008, representation is made and still, no action is taken
in this regard possibly on assumption that the petition is pending
before this Court. Since the petitioner is allowed to prefer an
appeal against the grievance of the petitioner for retaining the Car
and also releasing the same on payment of Rs.23,625/-, we dispose of
this petition. We, however, direct the respondent No.1 to look into
the matter and see that the representation dated 09.02.2008 is
decided within one month from the date of receipt of writ or
certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. The Court is of
the view that if the facts stated and averments made in the
representation are correct, it is a very serious matter and the
persons involved are required to be strictly dealt with. We could
have gone into this matter. However, since the representation is
made and the authorities are supposed to go into the said
representation, we restrain ourselves from making any further
observation in this regard, leaving it open to the authority to look
into the matter.
We
reserve liberty to the petitioner to revive this petition in case of
difficulty. The petition is disposed of. Notice discharged without
any order as to costs.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Sd/-
[RAJESH H. SHUKLA,
J.]
Savariya
Top