Gujarat High Court
Pareshgiri Jivangiri Goswami vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... on 31 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/584/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 584 of
2025
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1028 of 2025
================================================================
PARESHGIRI JIVANGIRI GOSWAMI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application has been filed for condoning the delay
of 53 days in filing of the captioned Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicants Mr. Samir B. Gohil,
who submitted that the applicants are members of the original
respondent No.1 Union, i.e. Vijali Karmachari Maha Mandal.
The learned Single Judge passed the judgment which went
against the original respondent No.1-Union in the writ
petition. However, the present applicants were not informed
about the decision of the learned Single Judge.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/584/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that
after Diwali holidays, when the applicants inquired about the
progress in the matter, they came to know from the Union
leaders that the Union lost the case before the learned Single
Judge. Thereafter, the applicants alongwith other members
requested the Union leaders to file an appeal, however, the
Union did not file an appeal against the decision of the
learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that there were
total 21 workmen for whom the Union was contesting before
the learned Single Judge. All the concerned workmen could
not make consensus to challenge the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. Out of 21 persons, only 8 persons (the present
applicants) decided to challenge the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and all these facts have contributed to the above
delay.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave has vehemently opposed
this application and has submitted that the delay of 53 days
is not required to be condoned.
5. Having regard to the facts and considering the averments in
the application, this application is allowed and the delay of
53 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal is
condoned.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/584/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
6. Registry is directed to give pucca number to the captioned
Appeal and list the same today itself.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 4
