Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Hirenkumar Purushottamdas Shrimali on 8 October, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3854/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
3854 of 2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/19859/2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/6573/2017
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
HIRENKUMAR PURUSHOTTAMDAS SHRIMALI
=============================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
JATIN V YADAV(8946) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ARPIT KATARIA(11981) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 08/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1) The application is filed seeking the condonation of delay of
205 days caused in filing the captioned appeal.
2) We have perused the contents of the application explaining
the delay of 205 days. The same are as under:
"The impugned decision was published on
the official website of the Hon'ble High Court on
09.12.2024 and thereby the legal opinion for
preferring the appeal was sought from the office
of Government Law Officers vide communication
dated 19.12.2024 whereas appellantno.2 applied
for certified copy of the decision on 24.12.2024
along with communication seeking legal opinion.
On 08.01.2025 the legal opinion was received
from office of appellant No.1 and on 17.01.2025
legal opinion of AGP dated 03.01.2025 was
received at the appellant no.1 department from
the office of the Government Law Officer was
obtained in contradiction to each other. Therefore
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3854/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
vide communication dated 29.01.2025 proposal
was preferred before the Social Justice and
Empowerment Department and the directions
were received from the department to file LPA
against the decision vide communication dated
29.01.2025. On 31.01.2025, proposal was
preferred to the Legal Department and the
department of Social Justice and Empowerment
along with relevant sanctions to ratify the
decision of preferring appeal against the
impugned decision. On 03.02.2025 Legal
department addressed communication to
Appellant no.1 stating that whether to file an LPA
or not is to be decided by the department. On
18.02.2025 opinion was drawn by the department
in consultation with Petitioner No.2 to file LPA
against the petition. Vide communication dated
11.03.2025 Legal Department and Department of
Social Defence were respectively proposed for
providing their approvals for preferring appeal.
Vide Communication dated 19.03.2025, the
department had traced discrepancies in
documents provided by the Appellant No.I and
therefore on 20.03.2025 the
discrepancies/objections were cleared by placing
necessary documents before the Department. On
15.04.2025 after due examination of the
documents provided by the department, Legal
Department vide communication, No. LD/JAM/E-
FILE/12/2025/1472/J provided approval for filing
appeal and accordingly vide communication dated
17.04.2025 the Appellant No.1 was provided
approval vide communication No. SJED/MSM/E-
FILE/17/2025/0015/CHH SECTION to file LPA
against impugned decision. Vide communication
dated 21.04.2025, office of Government Law
officers, called for enlisted documents to prepare
the LPA. Upon receipt of such documents, on
02.05.2025 the concerned Assistant Government
Pleader was handed over the file to prepare the
draft. Since the summer vacations were observed
between 09.05.2025 to 08.06.2025, the concerned
officers were called for providing instructions and
relevant papers pertaining to filing of the matter
on 10.06.2025 pursuant to which the officer was
personally present from the office of Appellant
No.1 Department to assist the concerned AGP
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3854/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
and on 16.06.2025 the LPA draft was sent for
approval along with connected applications to the
office of appellant No.1 and after receiving
necessary approvals and verifying the contents of
the appeal, the appeal has been filed on the date
of affirmation. Annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A Colly are the copies of relevant
communications justifying reasons for delay in
filing appeal."
3) Learned AGP has also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in this regard in the case of State (N. C. T. of
Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 695 as well as in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani, AIR 1996 SC
162. Learned AGP has submitted that the State Government
has a good case on merits and if the judgment of the learned
Single Judge is upheld, the same will set a wrong precedent.
Thus, she has urged that delay may be condoned.
4) However, the present application is opposed by the learned
advocate Mr. Jatin Yadav appearing for the Respondent. He
has submitted that in fact, the delay is not required to be
condoned. Submissions are also made on merits of the
matter.
5) In our considered opinion, the delay is sufficiently explained
in the application and the same is required to be condoned.
The same is hereby condoned. The present application stands
allowed. The registry is directed to give regular number to
the Letters Patent Appeal and list the same today itself.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Jaimin Prajapati/32
