Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15313/2010 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15313 of 2010
=========================================================
VIKDRAMBHAI
KARSANBHAI DODIYA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ SHASTRI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MS MANISHA NARSINGHANI, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
It is the experience of this Court
that there are some people who have no other work to do, except
making complaints about everything, petitioners before this Court
appear to be from that class of people. The petitioners are before
this Court making complaint against working of respondent No.6 herein
– Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd.
2. The petitioners approached this
Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No.12147
of 2009, which came to be disposed of by order dated 25.08.2010. The
order is reproduced to bring home that the controversy involved in
the earlier petition and the present petition is the same. The order
reads as under:-
“1. By way of this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners
have prayed for following reliefs.
“(A) Be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, by commanding respondent Authorities to take immediate
steps of removal of respondent No.6 and his committee in its entirety
and appoint an administrator to take charge of the affairs of the
Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandli, Kodinar.
(B) Be pleased to issue
an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents
Authorities to forthwith initiate steps against the respondents No.6
and 7 and their associates essentially under the provisions of
Section 76-B of the Cooperative Societies Act as well as launch
prosecution and initiate appropriate penal action against erring
person, who are in-charge of Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut
Sahakari Mandli Ltd.
(C) Pending admission,
hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the
respondent Authorities more particularly, Registrar (Sugar
Cooperative Mandalies) to immediately seize the record of Bileshwar
Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandli, Kodinar and consequently appoint
a special auditor and submit the audit report before the Hon’ble
Court for further action and in the meantime, be pleased to appoint
an administrator to take charge the affairs of the Mandali.”
It appears that during
the pendency of the present petition, inquiry was conducted against
respondent No.6 and as disclosed in the further affidavit dated
03.07.2010 filed by Joint Director of Sugar, Gandhinagar, the
show-cause notice issued against respondent No.6 has been dropped
pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2010. In view of the above, if the
petitioners are aggrieved by any subsequent decision, more
particularly, decision dated 27.05.2010 dropping the
inquiry/proceedings/show-cause notice against respondent No.6, they
are required to initiate appropriate independent proceedings.
2. In view of the above,
Shri A.J. Shastri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, under the instructions from the respective petitioners,
more particularly, petitioner No.2 who is reported to be present in
the Court, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with a
liberty to file a fresh petition and/or initiate appropriate
independent proceedings challenging the order dated 27.05.2010 of the
Director of Sugar, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar.
3. Permission
is, accordingly, granted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As
and when such a petition is filed and/or appropriate independent
proceedings are initiated challenging the order dated 27.05.2010 of
Director of Sugar, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, the same may be
considered in accordance with law and on merits without in anyway
being influenced by the present order, as this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits in favour of either parties and has
not gone into merits of the case. All the questions inclusive of
other reliefs which are sought in the present petition, are kept
open. Notice discharged.
2.1 This Court in para-3 observed
that, “Permission
is, accordingly, granted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As
and when such a petition is filed and/or appropriate independent
proceedings are initiated challenging the order dated 27.05.2010 of
Director of Sugar, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, the same may be
considered in accordance with law and on merits without in anyway
being influenced by the present order, as this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits in favour of either parties and has
not gone into merits of the case…..”
3. Learned Advocate for
the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners are rightly
before this Court by filing the present petition. Be that as it may,
the challenge in this petition is to order dated 27.05.2010.
4. Learned Advocate for
the petitioners submitted that because the Director was at the fag
end of his carrier, he passed this order without applying his mind
and without taking into consideration the contentions raised by the
petitioners. Learned Advocate for the petitioners read the entire
order.
5. In the opinion of
this Court, the order is a well considered one. The Director has
taken into consideration all relevant material which was placed
before him for deciding the question involved in the matter.
5.1 A show cause notice
was issued to Sahakari Mandali Ltd. – respondent No.6 herein on
11.12.2009. The Director has set out in detail the accommodation
granted to the parties in hearing of this show cause notice and
thereafter, he has dealt with every single aspect of the show cause
notice in detail, setting out the reason as to why has he not found
any substance either in the complaint made by the present petitioners
or in the show cause notice. Finally, the Director deemed it proper
to withdraw the notice and close the chapter.
6. Learned Advocate for
the petitioners vehemently submitted that he is supplied certain
papers by petitioner No.2 herein only yesterday, i.e. 08.12.2010,
which were obtained by petitioner No.2 in response to an RTI
application. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
as petitioner No.2 has suffered heart attack, he was not able to
supply these papers to the learned Advocate and that is why, the
learned Advocate could not produce these papers before this Court.
7. Taking
out of sentiments from the submission that
petitioner No.2 has suffered heart attack, it was inquired from the
learned Advocate for the petitioners as to when an application under
RTI was made. He submitted that the application was made on
01.09.2010
and the documents were supplied on 12.10.2010.
Today it is 09.12.2010.
8. Learned Advocate for
the petitioners tried to explain this inaction for about two months
by submitting that, ‘petitioner No.2 is suffering for last two and
half months’ and therefore, he could not send these papers to the
learned Advocate.
9. Learned Advocate for
the petitioners was then inquired as to where petitioner No.1 is
residing. To that, learned Advocate submitted that from the address
set out in the petition it appears that both the petitioners are
residing in the same town. If that is so and if both the petitioners
have a common interest in pursing the matter, they must be close
enough to inquire the well-being of each other and if that is taken
into consideration, there was no reason for petitioner No.2 to
withhold these papers till yesterday and not to send the same to the
learned Advocate along with petitioner No.1. Therefore, the attempt
to appeal to the Court on the ground of petitioner No.2 having
suffered heart attack is misplaced and misdirected.
9.1 Learned Advocate
for the petitioners wanted the matter to be adjourned and therefore,
he repeated this request for not less than half a dozen time, which
was declined.
9.2 The petition was
filed on 15.10.2010. Incidentally, the affidavit is affirmed by
petitioner No.2 – Balubhai J.Jadav. If that is so, the story
that petitioner No.2 was suffering for two and half months is found
to be without any substance. All this is required to be set out
because an unreasonable stand is taken by the petitioners.
10. As set out
hereinabove, the order passed by the Director is found to be just and
proper, no interference is required at the hands of this Court. The
petition is found to be without any substance and hence, it is
dismissed. For the narration hereinabove, the petition is dismissed
with cost of Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred
Only).
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top