Gujarat High Court
Jesingbhai Hirabhai Damor vs A M Desai, Range Forest Officer on 5 July, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/MCA/996/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 996 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6662 of 2021
================================================================
JESINGBHAI HIRABHAI DAMOR
Versus
A M DESAI, RANGE FOREST OFFICER
================================================================
Appearance:
MS NIDHI K TRIVEDI FOR MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Applicant(s) No.
1
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 05/07/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2023, the applicant remained
present before the authority and accordingly, learned AGP has tendered
the order dated 03.07.2023 reinstating the present applicant on the post.
However, learned advocate Ms.Trivedi has submitted that the contempt
would still remain as there are no orders with regard to continuity of
service.
2. At this stage, learned AGP has referred to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Oswal Woollen Mills
Ltd. and others, AIR 1984 SC 1264 and has submitted that the contempt
application is not maintainable as no time limit is fixed and appropriate
remedy available that the applicant would be filing appropriate
application before the concerned Bench for getting the time limit fixed.
He has also submitted that the State Authority has reinstated the petitioner
in service.
C/MCA/996/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2023
3. In case of Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court
has observed thus:-
"7. In regard to the rule for contempt of Court, we find it difficult to
sustain the same. Though ordinarily we would have left the matter to be
decided by the High Court, we think it unnecessary to do so in the
present case having regard to the elaborate arguments addressed to us
by both parties. The complaint of the writ petitioners in seeking the rule
for contempt of Court was that the authorities had not dealt with their
applications for licences, etc. despite the 'abeyance order having been
stayed. It is obvious that the stay of the operation of 'abeyance order
merely meant that the writ petitioners were entitled to have their
applications disposed of by the concerned authorities. The High Court
not having set any limit of time for the disposal of the applications, it
was not for the writ petitioners to impose a time limit and demand that
their applications should be disposed of forthwith. If the writ petitioners
were aggrieved by the failure of the authorities to dispose of their
applications expeditiously, it was open to them to seek a further
direction from the Court fixing a limit of time within which the
applications were to be disposed of. We fail to see how the Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports or the Deputy Chief Controller of
Imports and Exports could be said to have committed any contempt of
Court, even prima facie, by their mere failure to take action in the
matter of the disposal of the applications of the writ petitioners. In the
circumstances, we perceive the application to commit the authorities for
contempt of Court to be a device to exact licences from them."
4. In view of the specific observations made by the Supreme Court
and in light of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner is reinstated, the
present contempt application is rejected and the proceedings stand closed.
If any grievance of the petitioner survives, it is always open for him to
file appropriate application before the appropriate forum.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
ABHISHEK/10
