[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nagjibhai Gokalbhai Bharwad on 5 February, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/491/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 491 of
2026
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/915/2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2955/2024
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 915 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2955 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 915 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2955 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 495 of 2026
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 921 of 2026
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 921 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2934 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 921 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2934 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 498 of 2026
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1465 of 2026
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1465 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2998 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 1465 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2998 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 499 of 2026
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 913 of 2026
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 913 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2874 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 913 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2874 of 2024
With
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Sat Feb 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 12 21:31:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/491/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 528 of 2026
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 856 of 2026
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 856 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2940 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 856 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2940 of 2024
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 535 of 2026
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 749 of 2026
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 749 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3004 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 749 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3004 of 2024
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
NAGJIBHAI GOKALBHAI BHARWAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.HEAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. All the above noted appeals are directed against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the
supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The delayed appeals have been filed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/491/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
ignorance of the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of
GSRTC v. Firoz M. Mongal reported in 2014:GUJHC:2167-
DB that a Letters Patent Appeal under Section 15 of the
Letters Patent Act, challenging an order passed by the
learned Single Judge in exercise of power under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
2. On a query made by the Court, as to the maintainability
of the appeals, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the State - appellant could not give any
answer.
3. We do not understand as to why such Letters Patent
Appeals have been instituted at all when the question about
the maintainability of such an appeal has already been
adjudicated by the Full Bench of this Court.
4. From time and again, we have come across
misconceived appeals filed on behalf of the State, mostly on
the decision of the Committee constituted under the State
Litigation Policy or under the opinion of any office of the
State. Filing of such misconceived and delayed appeals not
only cause unnecessary burden on the State exchequer, but
also add to the litigation burden of this Court which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/491/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
humongous.
5. On the intervention made by this Court, a State
Litigation Policy has been framed whereunder a Committee
is required to scrutinize each matter for forming opinion for
filing of State Intra-Court Appeals (Letters Patent Appeal),
by adverting itself on the opinion from the office of the
learned Government Pleader on the merits of the proposed
challenge.
6. It cannot be accepted that the opinion for filing of the
present intra-court appeals can be given in ignorance of the
Full Bench decision of this Court.
7. While dismissing all the appeals both on the ground of
delay as well as on the maintainability being directed against
the order of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of
power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we
provide that all these matters be placed before the learned
Advocate General who is required to make an inquiry at his
own end as to how and in what manner these appeals have
been filed, and on whose advice or decision in utter
ignorance of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/491/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
8. We also require the learned Advocate General to ensure
that the directions are issued by the Competent authorities
giving strict instructions in the matter of filing of such
appeals which per se, are not maintainable.
9. The inquiry report of the learned Advocate General and
the instructions issued by the Competent authority/officer
under the above directions, shall be placed before this Court
through the Registrar General of the High Court.
10. Subject to the above, all the appeals stand dismissed
being misconceived. All Civil Applications also disposed of.
11. Before parting, this Court is also constrained to observe
that if the filing of such misconceived appeals is repeated in
the future, the Court will be constrained to realize the costs
of litigation from the personal pocket of the officer
concerned, who is found responsible for forming the final
opinion in the matter of filing of such appeals at the cost of
the public exchequer. This observation shall be treated as a
warning not to repeat the occurrence.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
