RAMABHAI JANUBHAI GAVIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-12
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on May 01,2014

Ramabhai Janubhai Gavit Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.Zubin F.Bharda for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Bharat Vyas for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It appears that notice issued by this Court on respondent Nos.3.1, 3.2, 3.4 to 3.6 appears to have been duly served by way of direct service. So far as respondent No.3.3 is concerned, the petitioner herein has requested to dispose of this petition against the said respondent No.3.3 ­ Ramanchbhai Ratanbhai Gavit as having abated for the grounds shown in the affidavit dated 9.9.2012 filed by the petitioner herein.
(2.) REFERRING to the notice dated 27.5.2010 at page 44 which was dispatched on 28.12.2010 by respondent No.1 informing the petitioner the date of hearing fixed on 10.1.2011 was appears to have been received by the petitioner on 10.1.2011 at village Borkhal which is at the distance of around 450 kms from Ahmedabad. Likewise, referring to pages 39 to 41, it appears that notice dated 28.9.2011 which was dispatched on 13.10.2011 informing the petitioner the date of hearing fixed on 30.11.2011 was received by the petitioner on 3.12.2011 at village Borkhal which is, as referred hereinabove, at the distance of around 450 kms from Ahmedabad. Thus, it appears that none of the notice intimating the date of hearing issued by respondent No.1 was received by the petitioner in time and that may be one of the reasons for the petitioner not to make alternative arrangement for engaging learned advocate to represent him or remain personally present for hearing. Thus, it appears that the impugned order dated 8.2.2012 at Annexure -C to the petition suffers from the vice of non - observance of the principles of natural justice as no sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by respondent No.1. Under the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the issue involved in the present petition, prima facie, the case deserves to be remanded for fresh hearing. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 8.2.2012 at Annexure -C to the petition is hereby set aside with a direction to respondent No.1 to give full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as concerned respondents and time -gape in between the notice to be served on the parties and the hearing be kept in such a way that it be served in time. It is needless to say that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and respondent No.1 shall decide the matter on remand in accordance with law and on its own merit without being influenced by this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
(3.) SO far as this petition qua respondent No.3.3 is concerned, the same is abated and stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged qua respondent No.3.3.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.