Prahladbhai Ishwardas Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 7430 Guj

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/13614/2023                                  ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023

                                                                                       undefined




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13614 of 2023

=========================================
                         PRAHLADBHAI ISHWARDAS PATEL
                                    Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance :
MR DIPEN DESAI for the Petitioners.
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
MR B.S. PATEL, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MS ASHA D TIWARI for the
Respondent No.3.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent No.2.
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                Date : 07/10/2023
                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to take action for removal of the respondent No.3 as a member of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vijapur under Section 13 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.3 came to be convicted by judgment and order dated 13.7.2023 passed by learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.8466 of 2014. Hence, immediately on 15.7.2023, the petitioners made representation to the respondent No.2 - Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar seeking removal of the respondent No.3 as a member of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Vijapur under Section 13 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13614/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023

undefined

3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that despite the representation is made on 15.7.2023, till date, though the conviction has not been stayed, the respondent No.2 is not acting in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not removing the respondent No.3 as member. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that if the representation of the petitioner pending with the respondent No.2 is directed to be decided within some time bound schedule, at this stage keeping all rights and contentions of the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed substantially.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing with Ms. Asha D. Tiwari for the respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 has already challenged the conviction before the Sessions Court, Mehsana and after the conviction order is passed, the respondent No.3 has already been released on bail. He further submits that he does not have any objection if the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner, however any decision that the respondent No.2 may take must be taken only after hearing the respondent No.3.

6. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of by issuing following directions :-

(i) The respondent No.2 - Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gandhinagar is directed to decide the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13614/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2023

undefined

representation of the petitioner dated 15.7.2023 within a period of six weeks from today i.e. latest by 19.11.2023.

(ii) Before taking any decision, respondent No.2 is directed to hear both the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.3 and after considering their submissions, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within the aforesaid time frame.

(iii) The order be communicated to both the parties through hand delivery by notifying a date for decision as well as through Regd. Post AD.

(iv) Rights and contentions of both the parties are kept open.

It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

SAVARIYA