Gujarat High Court
S.K. Macwan vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14251 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2025
=============================================
S.K. MACWAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. This appeal is filed by Shri S. K. Macwan - Party-in-Person
who claims to be an advocate and does not know the English
language. Registry has therefore, taking into consideration
his Identity Card issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat, has
circulated this appeal. When the matter is called out, Shri S.
K. Macwan - Party-in-Person submitted that he is not
comfortable in making his submission in English language.
Rule 31A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 reads as
under:
"31A. [ Norms for Presentation of proceedings in
person by parties. [Inserted Rule 31-A vide
Notification No. C-2002/93 dated 20.12.2012.]
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
- 1. A Committee of two Officers of the Registry,
who are working on deputation from the State
Judicial Service, to be nominated by the Honourable
the Chief Justice, shall scrutinies the
matter/proceedings filed by Party-in-Person so as to
ensure that the Party-in-Person has complied with
the requirements of the Gujarat High Court Rules,
1993, and shall certify that the Party-in-Person is
'Competent' to assist the Court in person."
2. As per the above Rule, a Committee of two officers of the
Registry is required to scrutinize the matter/proceedings
filed by the Party-in-Person so as to ensure that the Party-in-
Person has complied with requirements of Gujarat High
Court Rules, 1993 and shall certify that the Party-in-Person is
competent to assist the Court in person.
3. As per Sub-rule 4A of Rule 31A which provides an exception
to the applicability of Rule 31A, if the concerned Court before
whom the concerned litigant wants to move the matter
permits such litigant to appear in person and it is further
provided that this norms will not apply in case of an advocate
having registration to Bar Council who intends to appear in
person.
4. As the applicant is Party-in-Person and is an advocate, Rule
31A would not apply and therefore, we permit him to make
submission in Gujarati.
Order in Letters Patent Appeal No.1216 of 2025 in Special
Civil Application No.14251 of 2013
1. Heard Shri S. K. Macwan - Party-in-Person.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
2. By this appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent Act,
Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Special Civil
Application No.14251 of 2013 is under challenge.
3. The appellant - original petitioner preferred the Special Civil
Application with a prayer to quash and set aside the Order
dated 15.05.2013 passed by the Additional Director General
of Police (Administration) granting 21 days leave from
07.05.2006 to 27.05.2006 as extra ordinary leave and further
it was prayed that the action of granting extra ordinary
leaves be declared as illegal, arbitrary and out of personal
vengeance.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant - original
petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police,
SC/ST Cell, Palanpur. He applied for sick leave for the period
of 1 month on 06.05.2006 as his son was sick and therefore,
he was required to attend his son at his residence.
5. It appears that only contention raised before the learned
Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner by his advocate that
the impugned Order is passed by the Additional Director
General of Police (Administration), Gujarat State,
Gandhinagar who had no authority to grant such leave and
that only Director General of Police and Inspector General of
Police has the authority to consider such cases and therefore,
the order dated 15.05.2013 is required to be quashed and set
aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
6. It appears that during the course of hearing of the Special
Civil Application, learned AGP appearing for the respondent
has relied upon the Office Order, being Yadi No.13/03 dated
10.11.2003, which is reproduced in the order of the learned
Single Judge. On perusal of such office order dated
10.11.2003, it appears that para 4 of the said order delegated
the powers to deal with such cases of sanctioning leaves qua
Deputy Superintendent of Police and Police Inspector to be
granted leave by the Additional Director General of Police on
behalf of the Director General of Police. Accordingly, the
extraordinary leave was granted to the petitioner for 21 days
by the order dated 15.05.2003 by the Additional Director
General of Police (Administration).
7. Learned Mr. S. K. Macwan - Party-in-Person also submitted
that he has received Office Order dated 16.03.1996 which
provides that such powers are to be exercised by Special IGP
(Administration) and according to him, after such Office
Order, there is no Office Order made available to him for
delegation of the powers to Additional Director General of
Police (Administration) to exercise the power of granting
leave to Deputy Superintendent of Police.
8. It was therefore, submitted that the Order passed by the
learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside
and the petition is required to be allowed as prayed for.
9. Having considered the submissions of Party-in-Person - Mr.
Shri S. K. Macwan and on perusal of the Office Order dated
16.03.1996 which is further modified by the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1216/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
10.11.2003 by which the powers are delegated to Additional
Director General of Police (Administration), we find no
infirmity in the impugned Order passed by the learned Single
Judge as the petition is rightly dismissed relying upon the
Order dated 10.11.2003. It is also pertinent to note that the
Order dated 19.05.2007 placed on record at Annexure-I by
the petitioner also refers to the Office Order dated
10.03.1996 with a further clarification that now, the power is
delegated to Additional Director General of Police
(Administration).
10. Therefore, in view of the above, the appeal, being devoid of
any merits, is dismissed.
11. Civil Application filed by the applicant also would not survive
in view of dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, civil application
is also disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Jaimin
