Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs M K Prajapati on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/879/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 879 of 2020
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 959 of 2020
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 959 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10522 of 1998
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 959 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10522 of 1998
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
M K PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SANDIP H MUNJYASARA(10781) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,2.1,2.2,2.3,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE THROUGH RPAD UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 28/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Manjyasara has put in appearance on
behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. We may note that the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the original
petitioners. By an order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Civil Application
No. 2 of 2022, the heirs of the respondent No.2 have been permitted to be
brought on record. The service report indicates that the respondent Nos.
2.1 and 2.2 have been served. No one has appeared on their behalf. With
respect to the remaining respondent Nos. 3 to 8, who were the original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/879/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
petitioners, they were impleaded by their designation of the University,
where they were serving. The proper address of the respondent Nos. 3 to
8, who are the contesting respondents, have not been provided in the
appeal and that is the reason why the service of notice upon the said
respondents could not be made and the notice has been returned with the
remarks such as, 'no such person in the address' or 'the addressee left
without instructions' or 'insufficient address'.
3. The main appeal is delayed by 576 days, for which no plausible
explanation could be offered in the application seeking condonation of
delay. The application seeking condonation for delay states that the
recall/review application was filed on 10.07.2018 for review and recall of
the judgment and order dated 11.05.2018, which was disposed of on
15.10.2018 and the certified copy of the said judgment was obtained on
20.11.2018. In the meantime, the respondents/original petitioners sent
communication to the Education Department on 12.10.2018 seeking
implementation of the impugned judgment and the same was forwarded
to the Higher Education Department vide communication dated
03.12.2018. Thereafter, guidance was sought by the Department of
Higher Education vide communication dated 09.01.2019. The Education
Department then intimated vide communication dated 20.02.2019 to the
Department of Higher Education to seek legal opinion from the
Government Pleader with regard to the judgment and order dated
15.10.2018. The Department of Higher Education then intimated the
Government Pleader on 22.03.2019 to initiate steps to prepare the appeal
to assail the order. Sanction from the Legal Department was sought for
and was received by the Higher Education Department on 5.4.2019. The
further clarification was sought by the Education Department vide
communication dated 01.04.2019, which was replied on 08.04.2019. The
approval was sought from the Education Department by the Department
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/879/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
of Higher Education vide communication dated 16.05.2019 to assail the
judgment. The Legal Department granted sanction on 25.06.2019 and
approval by the Education Department was granted on 28.06.2019. It
further states that the office of the Government Pleader was
communicated on 04.07.2019 by the Department of Higher Education to
prepare the appeal. However, since there was no legal opinion on the
appeal, the appeal could not be filed. The Department of Higher
Education then sought legal opinion from the learned AGP, which was
tendered on 03.08.2019. Sanction was granted by the Legal Department
on 29.08.2019 and thereafter certified copy of the all papers were applied
before the Registry of this Court on 05.09.2019. The preparation for
filling appeal then took some time and it was presented on 12.02.2020,
when it was registered.
4. We may record that even in the application seeking condonation of
delay, there is no proper explanation as to why the delay in filling the
appeal has occurred after sanction of the Legal Department was granted
on 29.08.2019.
5. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay 576 days, which
has occasioned in preferring the appeal. The delay condonation
application is, therefore, rejected.
6. Since the delay condonation application is rejected, the main
Appeal stands dismissed at the filling stage itself. The Civil Application
for stay also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
C.M. JOSHI
