1. The learned advocate for the applicant has moved a draft amendment. The same is granted and may be carried out, during the course of the day.
2. This application has been filed with a prayer to extend the time for making a representation by the applicant, pursuant to order dated 09.03.2011 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2174/2011.
3. Heard Mr.P.B.Khambholja, learned advocate for Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant (original petitioner) and perused the averments made in the application.
4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that pursuant to order dated 09.03.2011 of this Court, the petitioner was to make a representation to respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Health, Medical Service & Medical Education Department), within a period of ten days from the date of passing of the order, which was to be decided by respondent No.2, within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. It is submitted that due to miscommunication regarding the address of the applicant, the communication was sent to Vadodara, whereas the applicant was residing at Dediyapada, District Narmada. Hence, the applicant could not make the representation in time, therefore, time for making the representation be extended.
5. Having heard the submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant, it is noticed that the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2174/2011, has been passed on 09.03.2011, and more than one year has elapsed since then. The present application has been affirmed on 04.02.2012. In the interregnum, no application has been made by the applicant for extension of time for filing a representation.
6. In the view of this Court, the prayer made in present application for extension of time for making a representation cannot be granted, when the petitioner has clearly failed to make a representation, pursuant to the above-noted order within the stipulated period of time and the application has been preferred after almost one year. The explanation regarding miscommunication offered by the petitioner is not convincing.
7. In view of the above, the prayers made by the applicant cannot be granted.
8. However, it is open to the applicant to make a representation to respondent No.2 and it is open to respondent No.2 to decide the same, in accordance with law.
The application is disposed of, in the above terms.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) ~gaurav~ Top