Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10377/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10377 of 2007
=========================================================
TILOTAMA
BHARATBHAI VASAVA THRO POA H. MANEKLAL J.CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
MARITIME BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
NOTICE
SERVED for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR DAKSHESH MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR PR NANAVATI for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 05/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner by this petitioner has challenged the communication dated
12.1.2007 Annexure-E, whereby the petitioner is called upon to make
payment of Rs.1,27,72,098/- comprising of various charges, which are
sought to be recovered.
Heard
Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nanavati
learned Counsel for the respondent.
The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that without giving
any opportunity of hearing, impugned communication has been
addressed, which is by way of order calling upon the petitioner to
make payment.
Whereas
on behalf of the respondent, Mr. Nanavati learned Counsel submitted
that in the affidavit in reply at paragraph 3, it has been inter
alia stated as under:
?SThe
tenor of the letter itself if suggestive of the fact that, so far
even the procedure is not initiated to cancel the plot by giving the
petitioner an opportunity to pay the amount due & payable to the
respondents. Thus the entire petition is pre-mature and deserves to
be dismissed. It is submitted that the impugned communication is
merely a notice to which if the petitioner has any objection he can
very well raise the same before the Board and final action will be
taken only in accordance with law by observing the procedure as
prescribed under the Regulations 1994 and in accordance principle of
natural justice.??
In
above view of the matter, since impugned communication is by way of
notice, the petitioner may show cause by raising objection, if
available in accordance with law and thereafter, order may be passed
by the respondent board, after observing principle of natural
justice.
At
this stage, since no final order has been issued, petition can be
said as premature. Hence, same is not entertained at this stage.
Disposed of accordingly. Notice discharged.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
Suresh*
Top