SCA/8213/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8213 of 2008 ========================================================= THE SABARKANTHA JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus H A LODHAWALA THE SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1,3 - 4, 6, MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS for Respondent(s) : 2, MS KRINA CALLA, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 17/06/2008 ORAL ORDER
Learned
advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli moves a draft amendment. The same is
allowed. The amendment shall be carried out during the course of the
day.
Mr.Dagli
invites attention of this Court to the fact that after the recovery
certificate was issued on 17th January 2002, before it
could be executed, the petitioner learnt that the respondent
no.2-Prantij Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. was disposing
of its property. On legal advice available, the petitioner filed
Lavad Suit No.705 of 2004 before the Board of Nominees praying for
an injunction against the respondent no.2-Prantij Taluka Sahakari
Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., not to transfer the land belonging to
respondent no.2. The Board of Nominees was pleased to grant
injunction as prayed for.
The petitioner
thereafter obtained proclamation on 21st April 2008 and
the auction was fixed on 28th May 2008. As the
petitioner knew the bona fides of respondent no.2, it apprehended
that the respondent no.2 will stall the auction proceedings by any
means, hence the petitioner approached this Court by way of
Special Civil Application No.7888 of 2008, praying that the
respondent no.2 be restrained from stalling the auction
proceedings. However, the Court was of the opinion that the
apprehension of the petitioner is not well-placed and hence, the
petition was withdrawn.
The
apprehensions of the petitioner came true and on 28th May
2008 when the officials of the petitioner reached the place of
respondent no.2 where the auction was to be held, it was learnt that
respondent no.1-Special Recovery Officer Mr.H.A. Lodhawala has not
come. On inquiry, it was learnt that respondent no.1-Special
Recovery Officer Mr.H.A. Lodhawala on the basis of an opinion sought
for by him for no valid reasons, from an advocate of his choice
decided to postpone the matter. The opinion was to the effect that
during the pendency of Lavad Suit No.705 of 2004, wherein the Board
of Nominees has injuncted respondent no.2 from disposing of its
property, an auction cannot be held.
On
the face of it, the action of the respondent no.1 is found to be not
only devoid of any bona fides but also motivated by extraneous
reasons. Hence, respondent no.1-Mr.H.A. Lodhawala is directed to
remain personally present before this Court with all the necessary
papers pertaining to this case on 23rd June 2008, failing
which the Court will be constrained to pass necessary coercive
orders.
Taking into
consideration the fact that postponement of auction was his personal
decision, it is directed that respondent no.1 shall make his own
arrangement to represent his case and the office of the Government
Pleader shall not render any legal assistance to him. It is further
directed that the respondent no.1 shall not claim any ‘on duty’
privileges while attending this Court i.e. Travel Allowance (T.A.)
and Dearness Allowance (D.A.).
A
copy of this order be made available to Ms.Krina Calla so as to
enable her to communicate the same to the concerned Collector, who
is the appointing authority of the respondent no.1.
Direct Service is
permitted, today.
(Ravi
R. Tripathi, J)
Aakar