Bariya Pravinbhai Kanubhai vs Anju Sharma, Principal Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 4003 Guj

       C/MCA/274/2022                                    ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 274 of 2022
                                  In
            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13269 of 2021

=============================================
                    BARIYA PRAVINBHAI KANUBHAI
                                Versus
                ANJU SHARMA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
=============================================
Appearance:
MR JEET J BHATT(6154) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGANA JHALA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Opponent(s) No.
for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
                            and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

Date : 05/04/2022

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1. This contempt proceedings has been initiated for alleged

willful disobedience of order dated 20.09.2021 passed in Special

Civil Application 13269 of 2021.

2. Heard Shri Jeet J. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Ms. Divyangana Jhala, learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing for the State, who is on advance

notice. It is the grievance of the complainant that the direction

issued in the aforesaid Special Civil Application has been

C/MCA/274/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

willfully disobeyed by the respondent. In order to examine the

said contention, it would be be apt and appropriate to extract

the order which is alleged to have been violated, it reads thus:

"4. In view of the same, following directions are passed :

(A) The petitioner to prefer a representation to the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today.

(B) The respondent No.2 to consider and decide such representation in light of the decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove as well as referred to in the representation as well as the policy of the State Government in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

(C) The petitioner shall be informed in writing about the outcome of such representation."

3. A perusal of the above direction issued would clearly

indicate that petitioner was directed to submit a representation

to the second respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from

the date of the order and second respondent in turn was

directed to consider and decide such representation in light of

the decision of this Court referred to therein as well as policy of

the State Government within a period of eight (8) weeks. The

respondent was also directed that petitioner should be

intimated about the outcome of such consideration. Even,

according to the petitioner, the respondent has considered the

said representation and by communication dated 14.02.2022,

C/MCA/274/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022

has rejected the representation. However, the thrust of the

argument of Shri Jeet Bhatt is that the adjudicating authority

has not considered the representation in proper perspective,

namely it has not taken into consideration the judgment

referred to in the representation which it ought to have been. In

fact, we have noticed from paragraph 5 of the order dated

20.09.2021 passed in Special Civil Application 13269 of 2021

that petitioner has been granted a liberty to approach the Court

afresh in the event of petitioner not being satisfied with the

consideration. In that view of the matter, the contention of the

petitioner counsel that respondents have willfully disobeyed the

order cannot be accepted. Hence, contempt proceedings stands

dropped. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the

communication dated 14.02.2022, in accordance with law and

we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on

merits of the case.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni