Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1479 (GUJ)

Hasuben R. Gurjar v. Guj Stree Kelavani Mandal

2017-09-01

N.V.ANJARIA

body2017
ORDER : N.V. ANJARIA, J. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. What is prayed herein is to condone the delay of 835 days. The delay has occasioned in filing Misc. Civil Application (Stamp Number) No. 2311 of 2014 which is for recalling of order dated 30.03.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1967 of 1995. The said petition arose from judgment and order of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had prayed to declare the action of the School Management in terminating her services as Principal of the School to be illegal, further to direct the Management to give charge of the post of Principal, as also to restrain respondent No. 4 from taking over the charge of the post. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 15.06.2004 It was during pendency of the petition. 3. The Special Civil Application was disposed of by this Court as per order dated 30.03.2012 as not surviving. The Court was informed by learned advocates for the parties including learned advocate then appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has already retired from service and also that respondent No. 4 has also passed away. Those material facts and the developments were incorporated in the order. As per the liberty reserved in case of difficulty, the applicant appears to have filed the aforementioned Misc. Civil Application for recalling of the said order and for hearing the petition on merits. 4. It deserved to be noted that order dated 30.03.2012 disposing of the petition was presided by order dated 08.02.2012 Learned advocate then appearing for the petitioner submitted that he had already retired from the matter and had also informed the client for making alternative arrangement. It was submitted that so far no alternative arrangement was made, learned advocate was directed to once again inform the client about the next date of hearing. Since on the next date of hearing, nobody appeared for the petitioner, consequently, order disposing of the petition as above came to be passed. 5. It is after the delay of almost 21/2 years, the applicant-original petitioner has come out with the Misc. Civil Application to condone the delay. 6. It was mainly submitted by learned advocate Mr. Since on the next date of hearing, nobody appeared for the petitioner, consequently, order disposing of the petition as above came to be passed. 5. It is after the delay of almost 21/2 years, the applicant-original petitioner has come out with the Misc. Civil Application to condone the delay. 6. It was mainly submitted by learned advocate Mr. Bhusan Oza for the applicant that the applicant is old lady aged 72 years and was not aware of order dated 30.03.2012 It was submitted that the reasons are given in the rejoinder to the reply of the respondent and medical certificates are also produced. As against this, learned advocate Mr. A.K Clerk for respondent No. 1 Management submitted that the plea of the applicant about not being aware, was not believable inasmuch as in the other litigations before the Tribunal in which the petitioner was a party, she had remained present. He relied on the decisions of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Kanubhai Kantilal Rana [ 2014 (1) GLR 381 ] and Devchandbhai Bachubhai Vaja v. State of Gujarat [ 2016 (2) GLR 1041 ]. 7. In considering the question of condonation of delay of 835 days, the conduct of the applicant is a material consideration. The carelessness and indolence on part of the applicant was manifest right from the stage of passing of order dated 30.03.2012 It was mentioned in the said order that learned advocate for the applicant then appearing had informed the applicant-petitioner to make alternative arrangement, but the applicant-petitioner did nothing on that score. Learned advocate was once again directed to inform the petitioner and the petition was kept on the next date which was 30.03.2012 on which date the petition came to be dismissed as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 8. There is no satisfactory explanation of delay of 835 days. Even though the applicant attempted to make out a case in the rejoinder by offering explanation, it is hardly convincing in light of the long passage of 21/2 years. The conduct of the applicant could not be viewed leniently as she was shown to be disinterested at every material stage. Nothing is coming out except the say that the petitioner is an old lady. 9. A litigant cannot approach the court at his or her own sweet will. The conduct of the applicant could not be viewed leniently as she was shown to be disinterested at every material stage. Nothing is coming out except the say that the petitioner is an old lady. 9. A litigant cannot approach the court at his or her own sweet will. Looking to the total conduct, absence of explanation and the length of time which has intervened, it could hardly be said that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 835 days. 10. Application is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.