State Of Gujarat vs Hasmukh Harjivandas Patel
2021 Latest Caselaw 15421 Guj

      C/CA/1165/2020                            ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1165 of 2020
                                    In
                F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 4904 of 2020

================================================================
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                                 Versus
                       HASMUKH HARJIVANDAS PATEL
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP (1) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HARDEEP MAHIDA for TANNA ASSOCIATES(1410) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                           Date : 01/10/2021
                            ORAL ORDER

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

In the facts of the case, the application is taken up for final consideration, with the consent and request of learned advocates appearing for the parties.

1.1    Rule returnable forthwith.


1.2    Learned         advocate   Mr.Hardeep    Mahida       for      Tanna

Associates waives service of notice.

2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Mahida for the Tanna Associates for the respondent.

3. This application is filed seeking to condone delay of 60 days, which has taken place in preferring the Letters Patent

C/CA/1165/2020 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2021

Appeal against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge.

4. The appellant is a State. In the application to explain the passage of time, is the administrative procedure including taking of legal opinion required to be undergone by the appellant. The appellant being a State consumption of some time in the decision making process can be said to be inherent. In that view, delay to the extent of 60 days can be said to have been explained with sufficient cause.

5. Delay is condoned. Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) R.S. MALEK