[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Banaskantha District Panchayat ... vs Ashishkumar Bhaishankar Dave on 19 January, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6225/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
6225 of 2025
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION/30784/2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/13139/2022
=====================================================
BANASKANTHA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT THROUGH DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MAHESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL DAVE
Versus
ASHISHKUMAR BHAISHANKAR DAVE & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DIPAK N JOSHI(1689) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR AKASH GUPTA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 6,7,8
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R. B. Thakor
appearing for the applicant-original petitioner
No. 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Akash Gupta appearing for the respondent-State
and its authorities, and learned advocate Mr.
Dipak Joshi appearing for the original
respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. By way of this application for condonation of
delay, the applicant has prayed for condonation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6225/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
of a delay of 1047 days incurred in filing the
review application.
3. In the entire application for condonation of
delay, the applicant has stated as under:
"1. The applicants most respectfully crave
leave to prefer present Miscellaneous
Civil Application for review of the order
dated 19.10.2022 passed in Special Civil
Application No.13139 of 2021 filed against
the present applicant by Respondent No.1
to 5, directing the applicant and
respondent authorities to grant a benefit
of regularization in service as Multi-
Purpose Health Worker (Male) by way of
counting the service rendered on
contractual basis for all the purposes
like seniority, pay, leave and
consequential benefits to the private
respondents, the applicant herein has
preferred review application before the
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.
2. That in the SCA No. 13139 of 2022
notice was issued by the Hon'ble Court on
15.07.2022. That said notice was not
brought on notice to the applicant herein
so nobody appeared for the District
Panchayat and matter was came to be
allowed with group of matters by judgement
dated 19.10.2022. Therefore, the in the
absence of the appearance made on behalf
of the applicant herein true facts could
not be brought on record.
3. That about order passed in SCA was came
to the notice to the applicant when the
follow-up was taken in the above matter.
Therefore, show cause notice was issued to
the responsible person for not placing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6225/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
orders passed in this matter.
4. That thereafter immediately the
ammeters papers were forwarded to the
panel advocate Shri Hemant Munshaw for
preferring an LPA against the order passed
is SCA.
5. That in civil application for
condonation of delay in LPA as per
submission of advocate the Hon'ble High
Court was not pleased to condone the delay
therefore the same was withdrawn with
liberty to file review application in SCA
No. 13139 of 2022.
6. That in these processes delay of 1047
days occurred in filing review
application. The petitioner has good case
on merit and issued involved in the matter
is squarely covered by the LPAs preferred
in identical matters, therefore delay
occurred in preferring review application
is required to be condoned.
7. The applicant most humbly respectfully
submits that the applicant have a strong
prima facie case and the balance of
convenience is also in favour of the
applicant and therefore, the delay of 1047
occurred in filing the said application as
prayed for may kindly be condoned in the
interest of justice. If the said delay is
not condoned as prayed for than, the
applicant will suffer an irreparable loss.
So, the said delay may be condoned in the
interest of justice.
8. The applicant craves leave of this
Hon'ble Court to add, amend, alter, vary,
rescind or delete any of the paragraphs
mentioned in this application, as and when
the need to that effect so arises."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6225/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
4. The Court has noted the said fact, and it was
also fairly conceded by learned advocate Mr. R.
B. Thakor that initially the same petitioner had
preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. (F) 25381 of
2024 along with Delay Condonation Application
No. 4787 of 2024, which was withdrawn by the
petitioner on 19.08.2025 with a view to
preferring a review application, as the Division
Bench of this Court was not inclined to condone
the delay of 649 days, and learned advocate Mr.
R. B. Thakor fairly conceded that the aforesaid
application was preferred on the same grounds
for condonation of delay.
5. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated
19.08.2025 passed in Civil Application (For
Condonation of Delay) No. 4787 of 2024, has
passed the following order:
"Since we are not inclined to condone a
huge delay of 649 days, Mr.R.B.Thakor,
learned advocate for the applicant, seeks
permission to withdraw the present Letters
Patent Appeal with a liberty to file a
review application seeking review on the
judgment and order dated 19th October,
2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6225/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
the captioned writ-petition.
Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal
is disposed of as withdrawn with the above
liberty."
6. Since the Division Bench, on the same grounds,
was not inclined to condone the delay of 649
days, this Court also finds the reasons for the
delay to be insufficient.
7. When the Division Bench of this Court has not
condoned the delay of 649 days, when the
application was preferred on the same grounds
and such grounds were not considered sufficient
for condoning the delay, this Court would
certainly not condone the delay of 1047 days in
preferring the review application, which is also
preferred on the same grounds for condonation of
delay. Accordingly, as the delay is not
sufficiently explained, the application for
condonation of delay is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
