P.P. Patel (Premjibhai P. Patel) vs State of Gujarat and Another

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Kanubhai I. Patel, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. N.J. Shah, learned AGP appearing for Respondents.

The Appellant is holding the qualifications of M. Sc. Ph.D. Geology and Mining and he joined M.S. University of Baroda as a Lecturer and continued to work till 1977. He rendered his services to Government of Gujarat during the drought period 1998-2001 for a period of three years and helped the Government in drinking water problem for human and cattle.

He filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 462 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 25.11.2011 holding that the relief as prayed for by the Appellant could not be granted. This order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged by the Appellant in this intra Court appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is without assigning any reason and is illegal.

We have gone through the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has given reason that the relief as claimed by the Appellant cannot be granted. From the prayer quoted in the judgment, it is clear that the Appellant is claiming his dues for special technical services rendered by him to Government of Gujarat during the drought for the period from 1998 to 2001. It is well settled that stale claim should not be entertained and that is why the relief as claimed by the Appellant was rejected. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the relief as prayed for in the writ petition could not be granted and no further reason was required to be given by the learned Single Judge and there is no illegality in the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance in The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, and the facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of the instant case as the claim for filing a suit for recovery of the amount had become time barred and the writ petition was nothing but abuse of process of the Court.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant then urged that Article 51A of Part-IVA of the Constitution provides for fundamental duties and it was for the State to reimburse the work done by the Appellant for the work done by him and he placed reliance of the Apex Court in Biman Krishna Bose Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and also in LIC of India and Another Vs. Consumer Education and Research center and Others,

We have gone through the afore mentioned decisions, but considering the facts of the instant case, we find that Article 51A of the Constitution in any way has no applicability.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal devoid of any merits is dismissed accordingly.