Gujarat High Court
District Primary Education Committee vs Vankar Jagdishbhai Dudhabhai on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1074/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1074 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/20834/2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1074 of 2025
==========================================================
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Versus
VANKAR JAGDISHBHAI DUDHABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISARG N JAIN(8807) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH GUPTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 18,19
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant has pointed out
that on pari materia order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court
has quashed and set aside the said order as per order dated 28/07/2025
passed in LPA No.884 of 2025 and it is, therefore, urged that the similar
order may be passed in the present matter.
2. We have noticed that by impugned order dated 17/06/2025, the
learned Single Judge has allowed the captioned writ petition by recording
the fact that though advocate notice is served upon the respondent, no one
had appeared on behalf of the respondent and despite thereof, the
directions are issued allowing the said writ petition in favour of the
petitioner. On identical fact situation, this Court has passed the order in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1074/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
LPA No.884 of 2025 and recorded in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as under:
"4. Thus, the order-sheet reflects that no one had appeared on behalf of
the petitioner though the notice was served and in absence of the learned
advocate of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition by holding that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment
dated 13/09/2022 passed in SCA No.21562 of 2019. We find that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is very cryptic in nature and that too by
recording that the submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the
parties are considered; though no one had appeared on behalf of the
petitioner.
5. In our considered opinion, either the writ petition could have been
dismissed for non-prosecution or further chance could have been awarded to
the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy of appointing a private Advocate or
the Advocate through Legal Aid. The learned Single Judge fell in error in
allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent that case of the
petitioner is required to be considered as per judgment dated 13/09/2022
passed in SCA No.21562 of 2019; without discussing the facts and law on the
said judgment as to whether the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the
case of the petitioner or not. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, we have left with no other option; but to set aside the
impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the order
dated 17/06/2025 passed in the captioned writ petition is quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded back to learned Single Judge to decide the
same afresh. Registry to do the needful.
In view of the fact that present appeal is allowed, the connected civil
application is also disposed of."
3. Thus, the present LPA is allowed in terms of the aforesaid quoted
directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28/07/2025.
4. The captioned civil application is disposed of as not pressed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 13
