State Of Gujarat vs Narsinhbhai Kalidas Patel
2021 Latest Caselaw 1467 Guj

           C/CA/3052/2019                                         ORDER



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3052 of 2019
          In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 164 of 2021
==========================================================
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                             Versus
                  NARSINHBHAI KALIDAS PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
                                                    and
                           HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
                                      Date : 01/02/2021
                                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

RULE. Learned Advocate, Ms. Kajal, with learned Advocate, Mr. Gogia, and learned Advocate, Mr. Pandya, waives service for the respective opponents.

1. This is an application, moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 279 days in preferring appeal.

2. The applicant seeks to challenge the judgment and order delivered by this Court on 18.09.2018. A copy of the same was received 17.10.2018. The chronological details have been provided to urged that the approval was to be obtained from the Legal Department by the Dy. Secretary, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, Gandhinagar. It is their say that, since, this was in relation to the benefits of the DRDA, appointed under the Single File system, it was noticed that there is going to be huge financial liability and eventually, the same resulted into delay.

C/CA/3052/2019 ORDER

3. In this background, the present application, seeking following reliefs, is preferred:

"16. ...

A. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this application;

B. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 279 days caused in filing the above Letters Patent Appeal in the interest of justice;

C. ..."

4. Affidavit-in-reply is filed for and on behalf of the opponents, citing various decisions. It is also urged that most of the petitioners have either retired or on the verge of retirement, and therefore, considering heir hardships, this Court may not condone the delay. It is also urged that each day's delay has not been explained. Moreover, the explanation offered is not sufficient. It is, therefore, prayed that the present application be rejected and the decision rendered in 2012 (1) GLH 670 should be held, stricto sensu, where, it is held that the explanation for the delay should be reasonable and acceptable and there was bona fide effort in explaining he delay.

5. We have heard the learned AGP, Mr. Parikh, for the applicant- State so also learned Advocate, Ms. Kajal, with learned Advocate, Mr. Gogia, and learned Advocate, Mr. Nilesh Pandya, for the respective opponents, who have fervently objected to the same.

6. On the last occasion, we had directed both the sides that while considering the application for the condonation of delay, if necessary, we shall hear the main matter.

6.1    Today, after hearing both the sides and also on examining the





              C/CA/3052/2019                                  ORDER

explanation, which has been put-forth, we notice that there is heavy emphasis placed on by the other side on the decision in 'STATE OF GUJARAT VS. CHANDUBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & OTHERS', 2018 (3) GLR 2658., where, the Division Bench of his Court held, noticing the fact that the same was for those employees, who were working with the Panchayat and were deprived of the pensionary benefits, only on account of the fact that they are part of the non- governmental department and their appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, that, itself, cannot be a ground for this Court to straightaway reject this application, as the appointments, in the instant case, was by the Small Farmers Development Agency, Drought Area Programme Agency and Small Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Agency, which were established under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The main object of these Societies was to assist Weaker Section in rural area through economically viable cooperatives, by providing requisite credit and other support services.

6.2 Having, thus, heard both the sides and noticing the explanation put-forth by the applicant-State and also bearing in mind, the chronology of the events, coupled with the satisfactory explanation having come forth, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay.

7. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the delay days is CONDONED. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) UMESH/-