Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, for the respondent – State Government, who has appeared upon service of advance copy of the petition. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief:-
“8(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondent no.1 revisional authority to decide the revision application dated 27.7.2011 and to decide the application dated 27.6.2012 and to take decision on the application dated 5.7.2012;”
3. From the facts stated in the petition and submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that lease was granted to the petitioner, however, the petitioner failed to take subsequent actions and also failed to comply other conditions within prescribed time therefore, the lease expired/was cancelled. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority, the petitioner preferred revision application. The said revision application came to be filed on 27.7.2011.
3.1 It appears that, subsequently, the petitioner appears to have changed his decision and decided not to prosecute the revision application and to accept the action of the respondent authority of treating the lease as revoked/expired or as terminated or the action of not renewing the license.
3.2 In view of change in decision, the constituted attorney of the petitioner herein submitted an application dated 27.6.2012 (Anneure-D page 19 and 20). The said application is made on stamp paper which is in value of Rs.100. By the said application dated 27.6.2012, petitioner's constituted attorney Mr. Hirabhai Ramjibhai Goyani requested that the revision application may not be processed further since the lessor does not want to prosecute the revision application and the same may be treated as withdrawn.
4. Now, the petitioner-lessor appears to have approached with present petition through his constituted attorney claiming that though such request has been made by the lessor since 27.6.2012, the respondent authority has not taken any action and he has not received any intimation in connection with his request and the authority may be directed to pass the order.
5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner-lessor, has submitted that since any response to the application dated 27.6.2012 was not received, the constituted attorney of the petitioner – lessor also moved another application dated 5.7.2012 and again requested the competent authority to treat the revision application as filed and not to process and not proceed further with the same since the petitioner-lessor does not want to prosecute the said revision application and has accepted the decision of not renewing the lease.
5.1 Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, also submitted that the respondent authority is required to take appropriate decision on the said request and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
6. Upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP and upon examining material available on record of present petition, it appears that the lease was granted in favour of Mr. Budhabhai B. Meghani, however, the petition has been taken out by Mr. Hirabhai Ramjibhai Goyani, who claims to be constituted attorney of said Mr. Budhabhai B. Meghani.
6.1 A photocopy of the power of attorney granted by said Shri Budhabhai B. Meghani in favour of Shri Hirabhai Ramjibhai Goyani is placed on record at Annexure – B (page 13 to 15).
6.2 At this stage, it is clarified that this Court has not entered into and has not undertaken the process of examining and verifying the genuineness of Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Mr. Budhabhai B. Meghani and/or to examine and verify as to whether Mr. Meghani has actually executed the Power of Attorney or not and/or as to whether Mr. Meghani instructed and authorized Mr. Goyani to file the applications dated 27.6.2012 and/or 5.7.2012 or not (to withdraw the revision application) because of two reasons viz. (a) the revision application is still pending before the authority and all such factual aspects can be and should be examined and verified by said authority at that stage, and (b) Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner-lessor i.e. Mr. Budhabhai B. Meghani, confirmed that the said application dated 27.6.2012, which was filed by the constituted attorney, was filed under authority and as per the instructions of the original lease holder, i.e. Budhabhai B. Meghani. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted and also confirmed that said Shri Meghani is not interested in continuing the said revision application and therefore, under his instruction and on his behalf his constituted attorney Mr. Goyani submitted application dated 27.6.2012. He also submitted that since any response was not received, said constituted attorney Shri Goyani submitted application dated 5.7.2012 at the best of and on behalf of the original least holder, i.e. Shri Budhabhai B. Meghani. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, also submitted under instructions of his client Shri Budhabhai B. Meghani, that Shri Meghani is not interested in continuing the revision application.
Therefore, the revisional authority is directed to first examine the said aspects and only then proceed to pass appropriate and necessary order depending on the findings on said aspects.
6.3 Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted and declared that said Shri Budhabhai B. Meghani is not interested in continuing the lease and Mr. Patel also submitted that Mr. Meghani had not completed the requisite formalities within 90 days, i.e. formality of executing agreement was not completed within 90 days, and that therefore, the lease was not renewed and was cancelled.
6.4 Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, also submitted that at the relevant time, Mr. Meghani had preferred revision application, however, subsequently due to his personal reasons, he, decided to not to prosecute the said revision application and, through his constituted attorney, submitted an application dated 27.6.2012. Mr. Patel also clearly and expressly admitted and declared and stipulated that the said two applications are filed on lessor's request.
7. Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, has submitted on instructions from concerned officer, that the competent authority will take into consideration the said application dated 27.6.2012 and subsequent application dated 5.7.2012 and take necessary action, as required under law.
When a person himself does not want to prosecute his application, any further action by the competent authority would not be required and the application may have to be treated as “filed”.
Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, submitted that appropriate action will be taken by the competent authority in accordance with law and if petitioner desires, he may be conveyed the action taken by the competent authority, such intimation will be forwarded to the petitioner in due course after the orders are passed on the application dated 27.6.2012.
Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, is satisfied with the said submission and stipulated by Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP. Therefore, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, does not press the petition.
8. Under the circumstances, present petition is disposed of with direction that the competent authority will pass necessary and appropriate order as may be necessary in law and as may be considered just in accordance with law and take appropriate action, strictly in accordance with law, on the applications dated 27.6.2012 and 5.7.2012, upon being satisfied about the genuineness of documents submitted before it and also about the bonafides of both i.e. Mr. Meghani i.e. the lessor and said Mr. Ghoyani and after getting necessary and appropriate confirmation from the concerned persons, first of all decide the aspects mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No.6.2 and such other aspects and only after being satisfied about the said aspects and genuiness of Power of Attorney and the alleged instructions (to withdraw the revision application) and bonafides of the constituted attorney whichever decision may be taken, may be conveyed to the petitioner. The authority may call said Mr. Meghani and Mr. Ghoyani for examination before taking any evidence.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, present petition stands disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc