Gujarat High Court
Chiragbhai Bharatsinh Dodiya vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/14387/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14387 of 2022
==========================================================
CHIRAGBHAI BHARATSINH DODIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRAN UDASI, ADVOCATE for
BHAVIN B THAKAR(9371) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SUMAN J MOTLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 02/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Ms.Udasi, has tendered a draft
amendment.
2. Draft amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The
same shall be carried out forthwith.
3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following
prayers : -
"14. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ by directing to
respondent NO.2 to take action against the respondent
No.3 and be pleased to direct respondent No.3 to allow
the petitioner to join his duty in the interest of
justice.
B.1 Your Lordships be pleased to direct the
Respondent no.3 to issue the transfer order as per the
reply of Notice dated 04.11.2020 to the Petitioner and
allow to join the duty at new place (Transfer Place); in
the interest of justice."
4. The prayers indicate that the petitioner is seeking a
direction on the respondent No.2 to take action against the
respondent No.3 and allow him to join and perform his duty,
C/SCA/14387/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022
whereas the amended prayer reflects that the direction is
sought on the respondent No.3 to issue the transfer order as
per the reply of notice dated 04.11.2020.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined his duty on
03.09.2010, as an Operator and is performing his duty, as
such. The petitioner has not stated that under what / which
capacity, he was appointed by the Bhavnagar District
Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.
6. The writ petition is blissfully silent, whether he was
appointed on regular basis or daily wager or part timer or
contractual. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent
No.3 Union seeking a direction against inaction of the
respondent No.3 - Union of not allowing him to perform the
duty.
7. Learned advocate Ms.Udasi, has submitted that the
respondent No.3 has not yet terminated the service of the
petitioner and they have transferred him to another Chilling
Plant of the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 is not
allowing him to join the duty at the transferred place.
8. Thus, the writ petition filed basically against the action or
inaction of the respondent No.3, which is Bhavnagar District
Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. On a specific query
raised by this Court about the maintainability of this petition
against the respondent No.3, learned advocate Ms.Udasi, has
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of U.M.Cables
Limited Vs. Union of India, [2017 (347) ELT 78]. the said
C/SCA/14387/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022
decision will not remotely apply in the present case since a
Union cannot fall within the definition of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. The citation is relied upon without
applying mind to the proposition of law enunciated therein.
9. Under the circumstances, since there are disputed
questions of facts and the petitioner is an employee of Union of
District Cooperative Milk Producers, the writ petition is not
maintainable. The law enunciated by the Division Bench will
not rescue the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is
rejected summarily.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MB/ 03
