Gujarat High Court
Nasimmulgati Urfa Gani Gulamhussain vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/654/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 654 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3593 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 654 of 2025
=============================================
NASIMMULGATI URFA GANI GULAMHUSSAIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NAMAN K BRAHMBHATT(11307) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition has been dismissed noticing that the writ petition challenging the order dated 12.08.2024 under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act' 1993") filed by the petitioner was a second writ petition for the same cause of action. The first writ petition namely Special Civil Application No.13842 of 2024 was withdrawn with the liberty to file statutory appeal. While recording so, the learned Single Judge has imposed cost for the misuse of the process of the Court.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 23:04:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/654/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
2. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no concealment on the part of petitioner and further, on the date when the earlier writ petition namely Special Civil Application No. 13842 of 2024 was permitted to be withdrawn vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2024, the appeal was already pending and this fact was also noted by the learned Single Judge, in the said order.
3. We may further record that while disposing the writ petition as withdrawn, the writ Court has also permitted the petitioner to file an application seeking early hearing of the appeal and kept it open for the authority to proceed with the appeal along with the said application in accordance with law. Inspite of the said order, the writ petition namely Special Civil Application No.3593 of 2025, out of which the instant appeal has arisen, has been filed with the following reliefs:-
"(a) To admit and allow the petition;
(b) To issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 12/08/2024 by respondent no 2 authority;
Or in the alternative
(b) To be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no 1 herein to decide appeal dated 12/08/2024 under section 57 (3) of the act within period of 3 weeks;
(c) To call for the copy of the records and proceedings of appeal before the respondent no 1 authority;
(d) To stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 12/08/2024 passed by respondent no 2-authority pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition;
(e) To grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para (d) hereinabove;
(f) to grant such other and further relief as the circumstance require."Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 23:04:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/654/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition that too with cost when an alternative prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondent No.1 to decide the appeal under Section 57 (3) within stipulated time. On the date when second writ petition was filed, the appeal was pending and the petitioner invoked jurisdiction of this Court to issue directions to the appellate authority.
5. We are not impressed with these submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, there was no justification for the first prayer made in the writ petition for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 12.08.2024 passed under Section 57 (1) of the Act' 1993 when appeal was pending.
6. The learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned has categorically recorded that the non-hearing of the appeal cannot be a ground to file second writ petition on the same subject matter.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge ought to have issued directions to the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, as an alternative relief sought by the petitioner and there was no justification to impose cost, cannot be appreciated.
8. Even otherwise, we may record that in order to maintain the second writ petition, the petitioner has taken a ground in the writ petition that since the order dated 12.08.2024 passed under Section 57(1) of the Act' 1993 is beyond jurisdiction, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 57 (3) cannot be regarded as an alternative and efficacious remedy, rather this Court has ample Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 23:04:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/654/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 12.08.2024 passed under Section 57 (1) of the Act' 1993.
9. Taking note of the said stand of the petitioner in the original petition, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition out of which, the present appeal is arising cannot be treated as a second writ petition because of the alternative remedy prayed therein for early disposal of the appeal, is found to be misconceived. There is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition with cost being the second writ petition. No interference is, therefore, called for. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
10. However, it is observed that the appellate authority shall make an endevour to decide the pending appeal against the order dated 12.08.2024, as expeditiously as possible, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all concerned by passing reasoned and speaking order, preferably within the period of four weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon May 12 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 12 23:04:36 IST 2025