Gujarat High Court
Surekhaben D/O Chhotabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2024
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13298 of 2024
==========================================================
SUREKHABEN D/O CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 24/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi for the petitioners and
learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent-State.
2. The petition has been listed yesterday and whereas since the
petitioners were questioning an order passed by the learned SSRD dated
31.01.2017, learned AGP Mr. Parikh had been directed to call for original
record for perusal of this Court and whereas today, while perusing the
original records and verifying the record and proceedings of the original
files, it appears that the revision application had been filed somewhere in
the month of July, 2016 on behalf of the petitioners and it was listed on
25.10.2016 and on the said date, it also appears that learned Advocate on
behalf of the petitioners was present and the revision application being
adjourned to 22.11.2016 and on the said date also learned Advocate for
the petitioners was present and the learned Advocate was directed to
inform the opposite party about the next date being 07.12.2016 by way of
speed post AD. It appears that on 07.12.2016, learned Advocate for the
petitioners as well as the respondents were present and had submitted
their arguments and the case had been posted for judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2024
undefined
3. It also appears as per the extract of the outward register which is
tendered across the bar by the learned AGP that the petitioners No. 1 and
2 had been dispatched copy of the order of the learned SSRD and
outward Nos. 15049 and 14922.
4. From the above aspects, more particularly the aspect of the learned
Advocate for the petitioners having remained present and submitted his
argument on 07.12.2016 and when the matter had been reserved for
orders, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the petitioners did
not challenge the order of the learned SSRD, since the petitioners were
not aware about the order in question. The petitioners having engaged a
learned Advocate and having filed a Revision Application through a
learned Advocate and the arguments in the Revision Application having
concluded within three hearings, the submission that the petitioners was
not aware about the order passed by the learned SSRD against them does
not appeal to reason.
5. Again, it clearly appears form the abstract of the outward register,
even at the relevant point of time a copy of the order had also been
dispatched. All the above aspects, clearly reflect the fact that the
petitioners having not come before this Court with clean hands, since
there is ample material to show that the petitioners in the normal course
of things would be aware about disposal of their revision application by
the learned SSRD. Such an observations, since the petitioners are trying
to justify the delay in challenging an order of the year 2017 after a delay
of approximately seven years, by merely stating that they were not aware
about the order in question. To this Court, it would appear that having
engaged a learned Advocate for prosecuting their revision application and
the learned Advocate being present and having submitted his arguments
when the case was reserved for judgment on 07.12.2016, the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13298/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2024
undefined
cannot be heard to state that they were not aware about the decision under
challenge. The petitioners, having slept over their rights for all these
years, now cannot be permitted to challenge the said order is absence of
any sufficient cause being made out and the delay cause being a mere
eyewash.
6. Under such circumstances, more particularly since the delay in
preferring the writ petition not being explained, this Court deems it
appropriate not to entertain the present petition, and hence, the same is
disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
