Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1685 (GUJ)

Arvindkumar Dahyabhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-25

K.M.THAKER

body2017
ORDER : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. This petition was dismissed on ground of non-prosecution vide order dated 28.02.2014 However, subsequently in view of oral request made by learned advocate for petitioners, the proceedings were restored. On 28.02.2014, the hearing of the petition was not attended. 2. Today also no one is present. Any request for adjournment or pass over is not made. 3. On examination of record, it has emerged that originally this petition was part of group of petitions. Other petitions of the same group of petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2009 The said order passed in SCA Nos. 17297 of 2006 to 17299 of 2006 reads thus: “Date: 18/08/2009 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S RADHAKRISHNAN) Following the order dated 15.4.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17296/2006, present Special Civil Applications are also disposed of accordingly.” 4. So far as present petition is concerned, on 15.04.2009, the Court had passed below quoted order. “Date: 15/04/2009 ORAL ORDER (Per-: I HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S RADHAKRISHNAN) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is withdrawing this petition in light of letter dated 5.11.2008 qua all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 Arvindkumar Dahyabhai Gohil. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn qua all the petitioners, except petitioner No. 1. The petitioners except petitioner No. 1, may approach the Government and the Government shall consider their request in accordance with law. Post this matter after vacation.” 5. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.11.2013, this petition came to be admitted. 6. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.02.2014 the petition was disposed of on the ground of non-prosecution. 7. In view of the oral request subsequently made by learned advocate for the petitioners, the order dated 28.02.2014 was recalled/was not signed. 8. From the memo of the petition, it appears that the petitioners placed reliance on the order dated 16.04.2004 passed by the Court in Special Civil Application No. 4679 of 2004. The petitioner in present petition claims that present petition is similar to Special Civil Application No. 4679 of 2004 which is admitted. In the said order dated 16.4.2004 in Special Civil Application No. 4679 of 2004, the Court observed, inter alia, that: “Date of Order: 16/04/2004 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. 2. To be heard with Special Civil Application No. 14349 of 2003 and allied matters. 3. In the said order dated 16.4.2004 in Special Civil Application No. 4679 of 2004, the Court observed, inter alia, that: “Date of Order: 16/04/2004 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. 2. To be heard with Special Civil Application No. 14349 of 2003 and allied matters. 3. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 23rd June, 2004. 4. It is stated by learned Advocate Mr. Upadhyay that the petitioner is identically situated to the petitioners in the above referred matters. However, the petitioner also additionally challenges the Condition No. 1 in the Circular as being contrary tot he Recruitment Rules 2(c) of the Police Sub Inspector Recruitment Rules, 2003. Under the circumstances, it is directed by way of ad-interim relief that the respondent authorities shall permit the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process/processes to be held hereafter under the Police Sub Inspector Recruitment Rules, 2003, and, after considering his case on merits, keep his result in a sealed envelop to be declared only after the final outcome is rendered in this group of petitions. The recruitment/promotions of other candidates made under the Police Sub Inspector Recruitment Rules, 2003, shall be subject to final out come of this group of petitions and the appointment/promotion order/s shall contain a specific condition to this effect. Direct service is permitted.” 9. From the record it has emerged that subsequently vide order dated 1.9.2014, the said Special Civil Application No. 4679 of 2004 along with other similar matters i.e Special Civil Application Nos. 14591 of 2003, 14566 of 2003 and 17325 of 2006 came to be disposed of on the ground of non-prosecution. The said order dated 1.9.2014 in the above mentioned petitions along with Special Civil Application No. 4679 of 2004 reads thus: “Date: 01/09/2014 ORAL ORDER (PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Though the petitioners are served with notices for engaging another advocate, since their advocate previously appearing is unable to do so, no one has appeared for the petitioners. These petitions are disposed of as not prosecuted. Rule is discharged. Interim Relief stands vacated.” 10. From the record it has also emerged that at the relevant time the petitioner felt aggrieved with regard to the provisions/conditions incorporated in the advertisement in 20.05.2006 The petitioners pray that the said advertisement dated 20.05.2006 may be quashed and set aside. 11. Almost 11 years have passed since said advertisement was issued. Interim Relief stands vacated.” 10. From the record it has also emerged that at the relevant time the petitioner felt aggrieved with regard to the provisions/conditions incorporated in the advertisement in 20.05.2006 The petitioners pray that the said advertisement dated 20.05.2006 may be quashed and set aside. 11. Almost 11 years have passed since said advertisement was issued. By now, either the process pursuant to the said advertisement must have been concluded. Subsequent actions pursuant to the advertisement, if already taken, have not been challenged. If any actions were not taken by the respondent in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.05.2006 then the said advertisement seems to have out-lived its life and with passage of 11 years, it seems to have become redundant and it seems to have lost its purpose. 12. It appears that in view of such circumstances no one is attending hearing of this petition. Neither the petitioner is present nor learned advocate is present. Any request for pass over or adjournment is also not made. Therefore, it appears that either the petitioner has abandoned the proceedings or the cause to prosecute the petition does not survive. 13. Be that as it may, since no one is present, the petition is dismissed on ground of non-prosecution.