H M Patel Institute Of Post ... vs Nayana G Patel
2021 Latest Caselaw 5596 Guj

      C/LPA/444/2021                                   ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 444 of 2021
                                  In
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5901 of 2008

==========================================================
          H M PATEL INSTITUTE OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
                               Versus
                          NAYANA G PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UDIT N VYAS(9255) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
        NATH
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 08/06/2021

                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

1 We have heard Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned

Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Udit Vyas,

learned counsel for the applicants - appellants.

2 The respondent No.1 - Dr. Nayana G.

Patel filed Special Civil Application No.5901 of

2008 claiming appropriate directions against the

present appellants to return the excess fee along

with interest @12% for different academic years

C/LPA/444/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021

and also certain other financial benefits were

claimed. The said petition came to be decided

vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2018. Para 21

and its sub-paras contain directions (a) to (l)

to be complied with both by the petitioner as

also the respondents - appellants. Thereafter the

present appellants i.e. the institute approached

the writ petitioner for accepting the amount

after making necessary calculations, but when no

response was received, it filed Misc. Civil

Application No.1 of 2019 in Special Civil

Application No.5901 of 2008 praying for

clarification and modification to the extent that

appropriate directions may be issued to the

Registry to return the said amount deposited in

excess to the applicants. The said application

was disposed of by the learned Single Judge

subject to certain clarifications. The

clarification was to the extent that it was only

after the process contemplated under para 21(a)

to (l) is fully completed and any balance amount

C/LPA/444/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021

which remained with the Registry would be

required to be returned to the applicants subject

to fulfillment of the said conditions contained

in para 21(a) to (l). It is this order against

which the present appeal has been preferred.

3              Mr.        Dhaval               Dave,          learned              Senior

Advocate,              drew        our      attention           to       the         facts

mentioned in the Misc. Civil Application No.1 of

2019 and pointed out that after due calculation,

as required in the judgment and order dated

20.08.2008, an amount of Rs.3,20,193/- was

payable to the writ petitioner. He further

submitted that despite the best efforts made by

the present appellant i.e. the institute, the

whereabouts of the writ petitioner are not known

nor has she come forward to accept the said

amount, which is still lying with this Court

under orders passed in the writ petition at the

initial stage. Further, according to Mr. Dave,

the amount has accumulated interest also and as

C/LPA/444/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021

of date, it is much more than what is actually

due to the writ petitioner. He therefore

submitted that the Court may issue appropriate

directions to the Registry to return the amount

lying in deposit with it to the applicant -

appellant. By an order dated 13.02.2020 the

Registry was directed to submit a report with

regard to the total amount lying in deposit.

Pursuant to the said order, the Registry

submitted a report dated 24.02.2020. As per the

report, the total amount of the principal plus

the interest accrued till 20.02.2020 was

Rs.6,88,344/-. The table mentions details of the

amount deposited by the appellant, the amount

withdrawn and paid to the writ petitioner, the

balance amount and the final amount recorded

above. From our records also, we are unable to

find any request made by the original writ

petitioner staking any claim on the amount due to

her. Accepting the affidavit filed by the

appellants in the Misc. Civil Application No.1 of

C/LPA/444/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021

2019, an amount of Rs.3,20,193/- is due to the

writ petitioner. Although Mr. Dave, learned

Senior Advocate has submitted that the entire

amount lying with the Registry may be paid to the

appellant and the appellant would undertake that

as and when the writ petitioner stakes her claim,

the aforementioned amount of Rs.3,20,193/- would

be paid to her. But we feel that the said amount

may continue with the Registry or may be placed

before the State Legal Services Authority at its

disposal for larger benefit of the needy and poor

or it may be given to the Gujarat High Court

Advocates Association for the welfare of lawyers

and clerks, who have extremely suffered during

the last 16 months of the pandemic of Covid-19.

For the time being, considering the request of

Mr. Dave, we direct the Registry to retain an

amount of Rs.3,21,000/- with it and continue it

in fixed deposit and the remaining amount

whatever it may have grown till today, may be

returned to the appellant No.3 by way of an

C/LPA/444/2021 ORDER DATED: 08/06/2021

account payee cheque drawn in favour of Charutar

Arogya Mandal within 15 days from today. The

cheque may be collected by Mr. Udit Vyas or his

registered clerk from the Registry upon proper

verification.

4 With the aforesaid order, this appeal

would not require any further consideration

except for the utilization of the remaining

amount which will still continue with the

Registry. We dispose of this appeal in view of

the above observations. However, the matter may

be listed before the appropriate Bench only for

the purpose of issuing directions for proper

months.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM