Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 229 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Ashwinbhai Ranchhodbhai Desai

2018-01-23

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. ADMIT. Shri Sunil Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent-original petitioner. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, more particularly, as per the reasons stated herein-below and as such, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision, Appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1605/2004 by which the learned Single Judge directed original respondent no. 2-Collector, Navsari to prepare the proposal for regularization of the service of the writ applicant in accordance with law and forward the same to the State Government for necessary approval and order, original respondents have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order and issuing the directions in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 has solely considered the earlier interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and has not at all adjudicated the issue involved in the main petition on merits. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the earlier interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge and the original petitioner was continued in service on an undertaking given by the original petitioner that he shall not claim regularization. Despite the above and solely observing that the earlier interim order has been continued and the original petitioner has been continued in service pursuant to the interim order, learned Single Judge has directed the Collector to send the proposal for regularization without adjudicating the issue whether the original petitioner is entitled to regularization or not. 5. Despite the above and solely observing that the earlier interim order has been continued and the original petitioner has been continued in service pursuant to the interim order, learned Single Judge has directed the Collector to send the proposal for regularization without adjudicating the issue whether the original petitioner is entitled to regularization or not. 5. In view of the above, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, more particularly, Shri D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for Shri Sunil Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-original petitioner that let the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law and on its own merits. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite any further reasoned order as the matter is being remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and the broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded hereinabove and without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits in favour of either parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits. The petition before the learned Single Judge is ordered to be expedited. 7. With this, present Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Civil Application No. 532/2018 In view of disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Applications stands disposed of.