AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya
RULE. Mr. Janak Raval, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate waives service of rule for respondent No.4.
By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(A) The Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.11.2011 (at Annexure:A to this petition) passed by the respondent no.3 District Panchayat, Palanpur.
(B) Pending final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon''ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 01.11.2011 (at Annexure:A to this petition) passed by the respondent no.3 District Panchayat, Palanpur.
(C) The Hon''ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon''ble Court in the interest of justice.
From the prayers, it clearly indicates that what is challenged by the present petitioner is an order passed u/s 107 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 by respondent No.3. It appears from the order impugned in the present petition and as per the specific contentions raised by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has not been heard and the order is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without even calling the petitioner society for hearing, straightway the impugned order is passed. Considering the short ground, this Court vide order dated 23.11.2011 passed the following order:
NOTICE returnable on 7.12.2011.
Looking to the facts and circumstances arising in this petition and more particularly, prima facie, it appears that the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of being heard, only on the basis of the written reply filed by the parties as well as considering the fact that the main Revision is pending before the authority, the Court may dispose of the matter finally on the returnable date. In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief in terms of Para 7(B) till then. Direct service is permitted.
It is also pertinent to note at this stage that by way of filing Civil Application No.13194 of 2011, Babubhai Karamshibhai Desai, who claims to be the complainant, had filed the said application for being joined as party, is allowed with consent by this Court today. Mr. S.B. Chauhan, District Registrar, Palanpur is personally present in the Court and in view of earlier order dated 23.11.2011, Mr. Janak Raval, learned AGP, on instructions, states that the order dated 01.11.2011 at Annexure-A to the petition was passed without hearing the present petitioner.
On this short ground, the order dated 01.11.2011 at Annexure-A to the petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the parties including the newly added respondent No.4 are required to be heard again after giving an opportunity of being heard by the concerned authority.
Mr. Janak Raval, learned AGP, on instructions, from Mr. S.B. Chauhan, respondent No.3 herein who is present in the Court makes a statement that respondent No.3 shall hear the petitioner society through his authorized person and the newly added respondent No.4 on 31.12.2011 at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the newly added respondent No.4 have agreed before this Court that the petitioner and respondent No.4 shall remain present for hearing on 31.12.2011 and for which no separate notice would be necessary.
In the interest of justice, therefore, without entering into merits of the order impugned in the present petition, the said impugned order dated 01.11.2011 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to hear the petitioner and respondent No.4 as per the statement made before this Court on 31.12.2011 at 11:30 a.m.
It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and only on the short ground of non-granting of an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order dated 01.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. It is expected that respondent No.3 shall hear and decide the proceedings before him in accordance with law without being influenced by this order.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Parties to bear their own costs.