Bhartiben Maheshkumar Mehta vs State Of Gujarat

     C/SCA/11117/2022                               ORDER DATED: 23/02/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11117 of 2022
==========================================================
                        BHARTIBEN MAHESHKUMAR MEHTA
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.HETAL G PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                               Date : 23/02/2023
                                ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. On 27.06.2022, this Court has passed the following order:

"1. Mr.Viral Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Collector,Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the only reason which can be discern out from the order of the Collector, which would be that the Mamlatdar & ALT as well as the Deputy Collector have given the negative opinion. The order without reason would be in violation of principles of natural justice. Atleast, some opportunity or copy of the opinions of the revenue authorities should have been provided, letting the petitioner know, what weighed with the Collector while disposing of the application.

2. Considered the submissions. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 11.07.2022. Mr. JK Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Direct service is permitted for respondent no. 2.

C/SCA/11117/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2023

3. It is by now well settled that the judicial, quasi judicial or administrative authorities, if take any decision, they are obliged to furnish the reasons. In the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Apex Court has held and observed that reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. That a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusion; insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

4. In wake of the aforesaid well settled principle, Mr. JK Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader to take instructions as regards the reasons which have been assigned by the Collector. "

3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has already observed that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application dated 04.01.2023 seeking consolidation permissions under Section 43 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 and also for non-agricultural use of the said land under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents may be directed to decide the aforesaid application without being influenced by the impugned order.

C/SCA/11117/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2023

5. Learned AGP, upon instructions, has submitted that the respondent authority is under process of considering the application filed by the petitioner.

6. Under the circumstances, and in light of the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by this Court, the impugned order (at Annexure-A), being an unreasoned order, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authority i.e. respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner dated 04.01.2023 within a period of 12 weeks and communicate the outcome thereof to the petitioner.

7. The writ petition stands allowed in part. Rule made absolute. To the aforesaid extent.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 24 20:50:00 IST 2023