[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mangroda Jagdish Maganbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19848 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
MANGRODA JAGDISH MAGANBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,
30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50
,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,7,8,9
MS. FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum Sukhadwala for the respondent - State its authorities waives service of notice of admission of this petition. With consent of learned advocates, matter is taken up for final hearing.
[2] Heard the learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu A. Jha for the petitioners as also learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Sukhadwala for the respondent - State its authorities, at length.
[3] The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow my petition;
B. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners;
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to not replace the petitioners by other candidates;
D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners as Home Guard;
H. Be pleased to pass such other further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case."
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
[4] Learned advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha appearing for the petitioners would submit that all the petitioners were engaged as Home Guards by respondent - authority and discharging their duty as Home Guards as and when required by them but, without any prior intimation or notice, their services were discontinued by respondents, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined [4.1] Learned advocate Mr. Jha would respectfully submit that as per Section (6-B) (2) of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947'), before issuing any termination order, an opportunity of hearing is sine qua non, which failed to observe by respondent- authority.
[4.2] Learned advocate Mr. Jha would respectfully submit that though respondents tried to make out their case in the reply that there was in fact termination order served upon all petitioners but there is nothing on record to show and substantiate that each petitioner received termination order at given point of time issued by the Commandant.
[4.3] So, making the above submissions, Mr. Jha requests this Court to allow the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE AND ITS AUTHORITIES.
[5] Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala would respectfully submit that there are no particulars given by the petitioners from where to where they were serving or discontinued by respondent - authority. It is respectfully submitted that as per the provisions of the Act 1947, it would be pure discretion available with the authority to take services of the petitioners when appointed as Home Guards and there is no indefensible right of petitioners to claim work from respondents.
[5.1] Learned AGP would respectfully submit that as per Section (6-B) (1-A) of the Act 1947, in a case where Commandant General opined that services of person appointed as Home guard Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined no longer required, he would discharge from the services wherein there is no need to either assign any reason or give opportunity of hearing, unlike required to give any order of dismissal passed under Section (6-B) (1) of the Act 1947. It is submitted that in a case of petitioners as well, all were discharged from their respective services, then there was no need arise to afford them any opportunity of hearing.
[5.2] Learned AGP would respectfully submit that as per the voluminous documents, which are submitted with the reply of this petition, would indicate that at given point of time, as per normal procedure, all petitioners who discontinued / discharged from their services, were informed by concerned Official of respondent - authority by way of simple post long back, thereby, such record is not available with respondents to show that at given point of time, petitioners were served with the order of termination / discharge.
[5.3] Lastly, Learned AGP would respectfully submit that as per subsection (3) of Section (6-B) of the Act 1947, petitioners have alternative remedy of Appeal whereby, they can approach the Commandant General against the order of their termination.
[5.4] So, making the above submissions, learned AGP would request this Court not to entertain the present writ petition.
ANALYSIS [6] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after going through the record, prima facie, it appears that services of petitioners though engaged as Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Home Guards, there is no permanency and / or any continuity of service, require to be given, inasmuch as, as and when any services of Home Guards required, petitioners like other Home Guards called upon by the authorities on daily basis, accordingly, they require to be paid for rendering such services.
[7] Nonetheless, when this Court examined order passed against petitioners by Commandant, it appears to have been passed under sub-section (1A) of Section (6B) of the Act, 1947, whereby provision of sub-section (2) of Section (6B) of the Act, 1947 would not be applicable thereby, observance of prior notice and or any opportunity of hearing not required to be given to petitioner.
[8] Nevertheless, when respondent - authority thought it fit to discontinued their services by issuing order of discharge, as pointed out in their reply, it would be expected from the authority to serve the copy of such discharge order, passed as per subsection (1A) of Section (6B) of the Act, 1947, thereby, petitioners, being aggrieved against such order of discharge, may file an appeal before the Commandant General.
[9] Learned AGP tried to substantiate her submissions by drawing attention to the different documents placed on record, whereby, tried to substantiate her plea that at given point of time, petitioners were served with the notice of order of discharge. Nonetheless, none of such documents would indicate that such order was in fact received / served upon the petitioners. As noted hereinabove, all such orders appear to have been sent through normal mode as per the practice prevailing in Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the Office of respondent.
[10] Be that as it may, when it has come on record that services of the petitioners have been discharged by order of competent authority i.e. Commandant, as per subsection (3) of Section (6-B) of the Act, 1947, they can avail the alternative remedy by approaching the competent authority. Furthermore, before approaching this Court by way of this petition, none of the petitioners have ever approached the respondent - authority so as to verify whether they are still continued in service or discharged. Moreover, they have not even made any formal representation before the respondent - authority; thereby to claim that respondent/s be assigned them work.
[11] Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, at this stage, this Court would not like to entertain this petition by relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commandant General, if so aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Commandant against them.
[12] At the same time, it is a plea raised by the petitioners that they were not served with the order of discharge, if so advised, petitioners can get such order collect from the office of respondent no.3- District Commandant, Palanpur, District - Banaskantha, who shall have to provide the copy of the discharge order to each petitioner as the case may be.
[13] It goes without saying that when petitioners will receive such copy of discharge from respondent No.3, period of limitation to prefer an appeal would start from such date and Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19848/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined within a period of limitation, if any appeal will be filed, the Appellate Authority is hereby requested to consider it in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations so made by this Court herein above.
[14] As an abundant caution, it is hereby observed that all petitioners shall have to visit the office of respondent No.3 on or before 15th December, 2025 to collect their order of discharge passed by Commandant, failing which it shall be assumed that they have deemed to receive it on 15th December, 2025.
[15] In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition is not entertained and is accordingly, DISMISSED, albeit with aforesaid liberty and observations. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 23:44:45 IST 2025