Manjulaben Punaji Gameti ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1675 Guj

         C/CA/2777/2020                                     ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2777 of 2020

            In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 24018 of 2020

==========================================================
              MANJULABEN PUNAJI GAMETI (PRINCIPAL)
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VALMIK M VYAS(6178) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                            Date : 04/02/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.Valmik Vyas for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent State.

2. In the facts of the case, Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Dhwani Tripathi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 with a prayer to condone delay of 353 days which has taken place in preferring Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 27.2.2019 in Special Civil Application No.432 of 2015 and cognate group of petitions, present application is filed.

C/CA/2777/2020 ORDER

4. Delay is sought to be explained by stating that certain complaints were lodged against the applicant and that the applicant was released on bail, whereafter only steps could be taken to prefer the appeal.

5. Apart from the above aspect stated by the applicant, there is no gainsaying that other Letters Patent Appeal Nos.229 of 2020, 230 of 2020 and 231 of 2020 are filed in respect of the other petitions forming part of the impugned decision of learned Single Judge wherein this Court has already condoned delay. This position is admitted by all the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

6. In the aforesaid view, delay of 353 days which has occurred in Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the same judgment deserves to be condoned.

7. Accordingly, delay is condoned. The present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Manshi