Vadodara Jilla Sarvodaya Seval ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 2267 Guj

C/LPA/1017/2013                                                          JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21
             VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1017 of 2013
                                   In
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12636 of 2004

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI                                            Sd/­
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI                                                 Sd/­
============================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to                           ­­
      see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                       ­­

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the                      ­­
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law                      ­­
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
      any order made thereunder ?

==================================================================
        VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT
                             Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==================================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEET THAKKAR, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1,2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==================================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
                      and
           HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                   Date : 12/02/2021
                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. This Intra­Court Appeal is directed against the order of

C/LPA/1017/2013 JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21 VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT

learned Single Judge dated 27.6.2013 dismissing Special Civil

Application No.12636 of 2004 filed by the Petitioner - Vadodara

Jilla Sarvodaya Seval Mandal Sanchalit. The petition was filed

by the said Educational Institution aggrieved by the order dated

20.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development

Department, Gandhinagar, by which the entire expenditure

incurred by the Institution during the period from 1990­91 to

1998­99 was not found eligible for Grant­in­Aid by the State

Government and only a sum of Rs.13,84,943/­ out of

Rs.33,68,466/­ was found eligible for Grant­in­Aid.

2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ

petition filed by the Petitioner with the following observations:

"9. From a bare perusal of the facts, guidelines as

well as the impugned order and the audit reports,

which learned advocate Ms. Vyas has referred to in

detail, it clearly suggests that there were discrepancies.

Not only that, but as could be seen from the record, in

fact there were communications like the

communication dated 24.11.1998 requesting the

petitioner trust to produce the record. Similarly, a

communication is also addressed dated 25.6.1996

C/LPA/1017/2013 JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21 VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT

after the Ashramshala was visited by the Director,

Tribal Development Department, and it was impressed

upon to make such improvement for the deficiencies.

10. Thus, on the contrary, sufficient opportunity has

been given and the authorities have considered the

positive aspects also and in spite of that when audits

have been made, the report is made and based on such

report the impugned order has been passed. Therefore,

it cannot be said that it is only at the instance of Shri

Dabhi or his report the impugned order has been

passed. Further, the entitlement to grant is one aspect,

but admissibility of the grant depending upon certain

expenses which may not be permissible under the rules

may not be entertained and therefore it is not that the

authorities have made a recovery for the grant which

has been paid but on the basis of the audit report they

have considered certain expenses inadmissible, which

has led to pass the impugned order. The submission

made by learned advocate Ms. Vyas that had the audit

been made in time, they would have improved and

corrected the deficiency is misconceived in light of the

C/LPA/1017/2013 JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21 VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT

statement in the affidavit­in­reply. Further, the audit

is normally made after the financial year and based on

such audit report, on the basis of scrutiny, whether the

grant is admissible or not is considered and therefore it

cannot be said that there is any discrepancy or lapse on

the part of the respondent authorities and the

impugned order is erroneous or without any basis.

11. Before parting, it is required to be mentioned

that learned advocate Ms. Vyas has submitted that the

matter may be remanded, which again cannot be

entertained in view of the fact that the Commissioner,

Tribal Development Department, has also examined

the record and earlier also a petition was preferred

and therefore now there is no reason to allow any such

request.

12. The present petition therefore stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged. No order as to costs."

3. In the present Appeal, Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for

the Appellant Institution has submitted that the said impugned

order dated 20.9.2003 was passed upon the initial Report for the

C/LPA/1017/2013 JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21 VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT

year 1990­91 given by one Mr. K.P. Dabhi, Inspector of Schools

who was biased against the Petitioner. On account of this, full

expenditure of the Institution was curtailed and only smaller part

of the same was found to be eligible for Grant­in­Aid. Aggrieved

by the same, the Institution had approached this Court by way of

a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single

Judge. She urged that Mr.K.P. Dabhi, Inspector of Schools was

biased against the Petitioner Institution and she tried to

corroborate this with the submission that the disciplinary action

was taken against Mr.K.P. Dabhi by the Department and he was

suspended from the service and on enquiry the punishment of

deduction from pension was imposed vide order dated

24.12.2019 to the extent of deduction of Rs.5,000/­ from his

pension every month for a period of 10 years. Ms.Vyas, learned

counsel submitted that even the Grant­in­Aid for further years

was also stopped by the Respondent State on account of this

basic report given by Mr. K.P. Dabhi and therefore, the matter

deserves to be remanded back to the Commissioner, Tribal

Development Department, Gandhinagar for reconsideration and

passing a fresh order after obtaining from the Report from an

independent person now viz. Inspector of Schools.

C/LPA/1017/2013 JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21 VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT

4. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader

submitted that the order was passed by the Commissioner, Tribal

Development Department, Gandhinagar independently and not

solely on the basis of the Report of the Inspector of Schools and

he justified the said order.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that the impugned

order dated 20.9.2003 cannot be said to be bereft of the context

and passed without taking into account the Report of the

Inspector of Schools Mr.K.P. Dabhi for the initial year 1990­91.

Since the allegation of bias is corroborated by the disciplinary

action taken by the Department against him which ultimately

resulted in the punishment order by way of deduction from his

pension to the extent of Rs.5,000/­ per month of a period of 10

years, we are of the opinion that a cloud is there on the Report

given by him against the Petitioner and therefore, it would be in

the interest of justice, if a fresh order is passed by the Competent

Authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner

Institution and after obtaining fresh Report from the Inspector of

Schools from an independent Authority.

6. Accordingly, without going further into the details of the

C/LPA/1017/2013 JUDGMENT DT. 12.2.21 VADODARA JILLA SARVODAYA SEVAL MANDAL SANCHALIT v. STATE OF GUJARAT

matter, we allow the present Intra­Court Appeal and set aside the

order dated 27.6.2013 of learned Single Judge and the order

dated 20.9.2003 of Commissioner, Tribal Development

Department, Gandhinagar. We direct the said Authority to pass

fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant

Institution and obtaining Report from the Inspector of Schools

for the period from 1990­91 to 1998­99. In view of the long lapse

of time, we direct the concerned Authority to conclude the

proceedings within a period six months from today.

7. With these observations, the Intra­Court Appeal is disposed

of. No costs.

Sd/­ (DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

Sd/­ (GITA GOPI,J) Bharat