AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.
1.0 The Petitioner, aged 79 years, is before this Court praying that:
7(B) This Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar insofar as it directs the Petitioner to pay the amount of premium at the current rate.
2.0 The learned advocate for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8938 of 2001, relevant part of which, reads as under:
Learned advocate Mr. K.M. Patel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that though the proposal was made by the Collector, Jamnagar on 10th July, 1997 in view of the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 on 12.3.1997 and more than four years have passed, during this passage of four years, the State government has not taken any decision in respect of the proposal made by the collector dated 10th July, 1997 and in view of these facts and circumstances, some suitable directions are required to be issued to the State Government.
Therefore, considering these facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the matter, it is directed to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the proposal which has been forwarded by the Collector, Jamnagar on 10thJuly, 1997 in view of the order passed by Respondent No. 2 on 12th March, 1997. It is further directed to the Petitioner to make representation to the State Government in the subject matter within fifteen days from today. It will be open for the Petitioner to make such representation pointing out the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10070of 2000 dated 30th August, 2001 within fifteen days from today. As and when such representation is received by the Respondent No. 1, it is directed to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the proposal forwarded by the Collector on 10th July,1997 pursuant to the orders passed by Respondent No. 2 on 12thMarch, 1997. It is further directed to Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation that may be made by the Petitioner pursuant to these orders while considering the proposal made by the Collector on 10th July, 1997 and to examine the grievance of the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of the representation from the Petitioner. With these observations and directions, this petition shall stand disposed of at this stage. It is, however, clarified that if any order adverse to the Petitioner is passed by Respondent No. 1 in the subject matter of this petition, the Petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Direct Service is Permitted.
2.1 The learned advocate for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to Annexure ''E'', Annexure ''F'', Annexure ''G'', Annexure ''H'', Annexure ''I'', Annexure ''J'', Annexure ''K'', Annexure ''L'', and Annexure ''M'', containing various Representations made by the Petitioner but the Petitioner was not given any satisfactory reply and therefore, the Petitioner is, again, constrained to approach this Court by filing present petition and praying the aforesaid relief.
3.0 Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Jhaveri. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that an affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the Respondents by one Shri JM Luni, IAS, Collector, Jamnagar. She invited attention of the Court to Paras 5, 6 and 7 and submitted that the Petitioner was not agreeable to pay the premium, as on date, of the present petition.
3.1 The aforesaid submission is made overlooking the fact that the papers were not traceable in the Government office and that is why, the matter got delayed and if that is so, the poor Petitioner cannot be made to suffer the consequence thereof.
3.2 It is specifically mentioned in Para 7 of the affidavit in reply that:
It seems from the noting made in the file of the said matter maintained by the office of the Collector, that there were various correspondence between State Government and office of the Collector, however, the said file was missing and hence those correspondence could not be placed on record. However, it seems that from 20.07.2006 again the correspondence took place between the Revenue Department as well as the office of the Collector. Ultimately, on 18.11.2008, the Revenue Department had informed the office of the Collector that it was not possible to grant post-facto permission, however, if the present Petitioner was agreeable to pay the premium as on date of that letter, the Government could consider the application of the present Petitioner.
4.0 The very fact that the file was missing in the office of the Collector and the Petitioner was not contributory to the same, the petition is required to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed.
4.1 The authorities are directed to fix the premium as on date of application of the Petitioner i.e. 24th January 1996. This time, the premium be fixed by the competent authority and not the Collector, so that, again, the Petitioner is not driven to this Court. Earlier, the premium was fixed by the Collector and the same was paid by the Petitioner, but later on, it was noticed that the Collector, did not have power to fix the premium and it was required to be fixed by the State Government.
4.2 As and when the premium is fixed, the Petitioner shall be given adjustment of the amount already paid by him and only additional amount, which is required to be paid, be paid by the Petitioner.
4.3 At the request of learned advocate for the Petitioner, Taking into consideration the age of the Petitioner, the authorities are directed to complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible but not later than 10 (ten) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
4.4 A copy of this order be made available to the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for its onward communication for compliance.
4.5 Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.