Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14242/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14242 of 2010
=========================================================
R
P RATHOD THE THEN MAMLATDAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SANJAY D SUTHAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NEERAJ SONI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast
Track Court No.2, Narmada at Rajpipla in Civil Revision Application
No.1 of 2007, whereby, the said application was partly allowed and
the Warrant dated 07.11.2007 issued by the petitioner, while serving
as the Mamlatdar, Nandod, was held to be illegal.
2. The
facts in brief are that while the petitioner was serving as the
Mamlatdar, Nandod, he was also the ex-officio Chairman of Hindu
Devsthan Committee, Rajpipla and was in-charge of the administration
of the said Committee. Respondent no.2 herein was serving as the
Honorary Secretary of the said Committee.
3. On
account of some alleged misconduct on the part of respondent no.2
herein, he was suspended by order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the
Mamlatdar, Nandod (petitioner herein). Pursuant thereto, respondent
no.2 was informed to hand over the charge of cash, documents relating
to bank accounts and other records.
4. It
is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 failed to hand
over the same and therefore, in the capacity of ex-officio Chairman
of the Committee, the petitioner issued Warrant dated 17.10.2007
against respondent no.2 u/s.25 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. By
the aforesaid order, respondent no.2 was ordered to be kept in civil
jail until he discharged the documents / valuables demanded from him.
On 20.10.2007 respondent no.2 surrendered before Rajpipla Police
Station and was, thereafter, produced before the Mamlatdar for
handing over the charge. However, respondent no.2 failed to supply
the documents / valuables so demanded.
5. Therefore,
again the petitioner passed an order dated 20.10.2007 by which
respondent no.2 was ordered to be kept in civil jail until he hands
over the demanded documents / valuables. Pursuant thereto, respondent
no.2 filed an Undertaking to the effect that he would hand over
charge of the items so demanded. However, the same were not supplied.
6. Therefore,
the petitioner issued Warrant dated 07.11.2007 u/s.25, 28, 157 &
164 of the Code against respondent no.2. In pursuance of the said
Warrant, respondent no.2 came to be arrested on 26.11.2007 and was
kept in Sub-Jail. Ultimately, he was released on 03.12.2007.
7. Thereafter,
respondent no.2 filed Revision Application No.1/2007 before the
District Court, Narmada at Rajpipla challenging the action on the
part of the petitioner in issuing the Warrant dated 07.11.2007. On
06.03.2008 an FIR came to be filed against the petitioner by
respondent no.2 u/s. 220 & 342 IPC.
8. Ultimately,
vide order dated 30.01.2008, the Court below partly allowed the said
application, whereby, the action on the part of the petitioner of
issuing Warrant dated 07.11.2007 while serving as the Mamlatdar,
Nandod was held to be illegal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
9.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the
respondent-State. The main case of respondent no.2 in the revision
application filed before the Court below was that the provisions of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code were applicable to revenue authorities
only and since he was serving as the Honorary Secretary of Hindu
Devasthan Committee at the relevant point of time, the provisions of
the Code are not applicable upon him. The Court below accepted the
above submission of respondent no.2 since the provisions of Sections
25 & 157 of the Code are, admittedly, applicable to revenue
authorities only.
10. The
State authority was not able to satisfy before the Court below as
also before this Court that the provisions of the Code are applicable
to respondent no.2. Therefore, the action of the petitioner was
illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the same, the Court
below was completely justified in holding the action of the
petitioner of issuing the Warrant dated 07.11.2007 as bad in law and
illegal.
11. Prima
facie, the locus standi of the petitioner is doubtful. However,
without entering into the merits of the case, this petition is not
entertained since any observations made by this Court may come in the
way of the petitioner in the proceedings pending before the trial
Court concerned. Hence, only on the ground of locus standi, this
petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, rejected. Notice is
discharged. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top