Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11423/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11423 of 2009
=========================================================
PARSHURAM
@ PARSOTTAMBHAI BABULAL JANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AMAR D MITHANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3,5 - 6.
NOTICE NOT
RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 23/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Pursuant
to the previous order dated 16.02.2010, the office has made its
submissions dated 17.02.2010 to state that notice to respondent No.4
was issued in time by the Office of the High Court, and that upon
enquiry, the Principal Civil Judge, Una has sent an explanation
dated 17.02.2010 by fax that the bailiff of that Court who was on
medical leave from 02.12.2009 to 09.12.2009 is responsible for
non-service of the notice on account of his subsequent absence
without leave. Nobody seems to have noticed that respondent No.4 in
the petition is learned Principal Civil Judge, Una himself. Thus,
all the unnecessary delay of three months, enquiry and
correspondence appears to have been caused and carried on, on
account of utter non-application of mind and depicts a very sorry
state of affairs in the administration under the Principal District
Judge, Junagadh. Ironically, the petitioner is a retired Class IV
employee of Civil Court at Una and claims an amount of salary
alleged to have been illegally deducted. Even the office of the
High Court has not applied its mind to convey to learned Principal
Civil Judge, Una that he is the party respondent and no service
through bailiff should have been required and he could have
acknowledged receipt of the notice. Instead, fresh issuance of
notice is suggested by every one including learned Counsel for the
petitioner. This is how time, energy and stationery is wasted and
the High Court is required to devote its time to the matters
properly in the realm of administration of and under the High Court.
This
order is directed to be placed before Honourable the Chief Justice
for appropriate orders on the administrate side with a view to
revamping the administration and fixing personal responsibility of
the officers concerned who cause so much waste of energy, time and
stationery and unnecessary delay in the process of adjudication.
Surrendering
to the request of learned Counsel to let him be practical and
directly serve respondent No.4, office is directed to issue fresh
notice for respondent No.4, making it returnable on 11th
March, 2010. Direct Service by Registered Post A.D. is permitted.
S.O. to 11th March, 2010.
(D.H.
Waghela, J.)
Caroline
Top