[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar Bhagvandas Jadav, Chief ... vs State Of Gujarat on 22 January, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 293 of
2026
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/37970/2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/3973/2025
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37970 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3973 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 37970 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3973 of 2025
==========================================================
ANILKUMAR BHAGVANDAS JADAV, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived intra-court appeal filed by
the Chief Executive Officer of the Bhuj Area Development
Authority, Bhuj, Kachchh in his own name.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
2. The appeal is delayed by 227 days of which no plausible
explanation has been offered by the appellant namely, the
Chief Executive Officer concerned. The casual assertions in
the application seeking condonation of delay are that the
certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2025
was applied on the same day i.e. 27.03.2025, and it was
received on 29.03.2025. The applicant states that the order
was communicated to the concerned advocate on 29.03.2025
itself. However, intimation about the order impugned was
given by the Registry of the High Court through the Principal
Civil Judge on 31.05.2025. There is a reference of the
procedure for intimation of the order passed by this Court,
thereafter.
3. It is further stated that having sought legal opinion of
the learned advocate, it was believed that the writ-petition
would be heard on the next date fixed, finally. But due to the
time constraint of the writ-court, the matter could not be
taken up and hence, the decision has been taken to file this
intra-court appeal.
4. It is, thus, evident that the decision to file the intra-court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
appeal on behalf of the Officer concerned in his own name as
the Chief Executive Officer, was taken when the writ-petition
is pending before the writ-court.
5. The order impugned is an interim order of grant of
status quo, wherein it is recorded that two Regular Civil Suits
Nos.175 of 2004 and 386 of 2005 had been preferred by the
petitioners, claiming to be the lawful owners of the properties-
in-question by way of public auction and for the relief to
restrain the respondent - Corporation from demolishing the
properties-in-question without considering their case for final
plot as also adequate compensation. Both the said suits had
been decreed vide judgment and order dated 28.12.2017 and
01.05.2023; respectively. The learned Single Judge has noted
that it is ordered by the Civil Court that the shop nos.2 and 3
of Deepmahal Commercial Complex situated at the ground
floor admeasuring 22.57 sq.mtr. and 24.72 sq.mtr.;
respectively [subject matter of two suits] shall not be sold or
taken for any profitable purpose. The order further records
that re-allotment should be done within the period of 30 days
and that the decree or the order passed by the Civil Court has
not been challenged by the respondent authority. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
noted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned that
the respondents were made party to the suit proceedings, but
they had chosen not to appear. As the decree dated
28.12.2017 and 01.05.2023 passed in favour of the
petitioners, had not been challenged by the respondents and
there was nothing on record in relation to the allotment of the
final plot or the compensation awarded to the petitioners as
directed by the Civil Court, the learned Single Judge has
proceeded to grant status quo till the next date of hearing.
6. This intra-court appeal has been filed allegedly on behalf
of the respondents before this Court, but it is in the own name
of the Chief Executive Officer of the Area Development
Authority, that too without even filing an affidavit-in-reply
before the writ-court, after a substantial period of 227 days
from the date of passing of the interim order. The explanation
offered by the appellant namely Chief Executive Officer in the
application seeking condonation of delay is that since the writ
petition could not be heard finally on the next date fixed, the
decision has been taken to file the Letters Patent Appeal.
Such an explanation of the Officer concerned is unacceptable
that too when reply affidavit on behalf of the concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
authority is not filed before the writ court so far.
7. Even otherwise, the present appeal filed in his own name
as the Chief Executive Officer of the Bhuj Area Development
Authority, Bhuj, Kachchh, cannot be maintained as the Chief
Executive Officer has no authority of law to maintain appeal in
his own name on behalf of a statutory authority.
8. From the above noted facts, it is, thus, evident that the
decision to file this delayed intra-court appeal is the personal
decision of the Chief Executive Officer of the Bhuj Area
Development Authority who has proceeded to file an appeal in
his own name on his own whims and fancies. The Bhuj Area
Development Authority is a statutory body and any appeal
filed at the expense of the authority will entail expenses from
public exchequer. For the whims and fancies of the officer
being in administrative control of a statutory authority, public
money cannot be allowed to be wasted. Filing of this intra-
court appeal challenging an interlocutory order without any
explanation for the inordinate delay of 227 days on a decision
taken at the ends of the Chief Executive Officer of the Bhuj
Area Development Authority is nothing, but misuse of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
process of the Court.
9. All arguments made by the learned counsel for the
appellant about the delay in disposal of the writ-petition or
pendency thereof, without even filing the counter affidavit
[affidavit-in-reply to the writ-petition] of the authority, before
the writ-court are liable to be rejected as misconceived.
10. The present appeal is, thus, dismissed both on the
ground of delay as well as on merits, with the cost of
Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] for misuse of the
process of the Court. The cost so imposed shall be paid by the
concerned officer namely the appellant herein from his
personal pocket and shall be deposited before the Registrar
General, High Court of Gujarat within a period of three weeks
from today, failing which the proceedings for recovery of cost
as arrears of land revenue, shall be initiated.
11. The cost so deposited shall be transmitted to the High
Court Legal Services Committee.
12. Lastly, after this order was dictated in the open Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
bonafide of the appellant cannot be doubted, inasmuch as, it is
a question of public property and for the public cause since
the Town Planning Scheme has been stalled on account of the
status quo order, the present appeal has been filed. Dealing
with the said contention, suffice is to say that from own
averments of the appellant namely the Chief Executive Officer
in the memo of Letters Patent Appeal, it may be noted that
with regard to the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2023
passed in Regular Civil Suit No.386 of 2005, it is stated that
the appellant had challenged the decree of the Civil Court by
filing appeal before the District Court with delay and the delay
condonation application therein had been rejected on
23.07.2024. In a casual manner, it is further stated that the
appellant is in the process of challenging the order of the first
appellate Court before this High Court.
13. However, with regard to the judgment and decree dated
28.12.2017 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.175 of 2004, there
is absolutely no statement.
14. For the aforesaid facts, the bonafide of the Chief
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/293/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
Executive Officer of the authority who has filed the present
appeal in his own name, challenging the interlocutory order of
the writ-court, cannot be accepted. The decision taken by the
officer to file the instant appeal cannot be said to be guided by
public interest or for the public cause. The prayer to condone
the cost imposed upon the Officer concerned for filing of this
misconceived appeal, after the order was dictated in the open
Court is, therefore, rejected.
15. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein will not come in the way of the parties in the pending
writ petition and we request the writ-court to decide the
matter on its merit without being influenced by any of the
observations made herein-above.
Consequently, the Civil Application for Stay would not
survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
