Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10511/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10511 of 2010
=================================================
PRASANNAKUMAR
NATVARLAL DASONDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DILIP B RANA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
Ms.MANISHA NARSINGHANI, ASST
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2 - 3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 20/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner-Secretary of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Valod
is before this Court praying that,
6(a) Your
Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or decision
by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.8.2010
passed by the respondent no.1 authority in Revision Application
No.243 of 2010, as well as the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the
respondent no.2 authority and further be pleased to allow the
petition with all consequential benefits of service to the
petitioner.
The learned
advocate invited attention of the Court to Annexure ‘D’, page 30. It
is a communication dated 4th March 1995 from the Office of
the Director, Agricultural Produce & Rural Finance. The document
is a typed copy, duly certified by the learned advocate to be a ‘true
copy’. The learned advocate for the petitioner asserted that it is a
true copy of the document. When his attention is drawn to the fact
that line no.2 does not make a cogent reading, the learned advocate
insisted that it is a true copy of the document. Later on, having
realised that the line is not making a cogent reading, he submitted
that there may be a typographical error. He later improved that
there is a typographical mistake, but it is too late in the day to
accept that.
2. The High
Court has provided that learned advocate shall certify the document
to be a true copy. The purpose behind that is that the learned
advocate should apply his mind to the document before he produces it
before the High Court. Mechanically certifying a document to be a
true copy not only frustrates the object of aforesaid providing the
procedure but it also results into waste of Court’s time and in turn
public’s money. The matter is dismissed on the ground that the
document which is certified to be a true copy, on the face of it, is
not a true copy.
3. However, to
see that the petitioner is not deprived of the legitimate right to
challenge the order, liberty is reserved in his favour to file a
fresh petition for the same relief.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top