1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the party in person has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(I) Conduct the impugn quasi-judicial process denovo and/or from the place in the condition as & was with new representing officer & new departmental inquiry officer, by allowing the petitioner to conduct further cross examination of the same prosecution witnesses by help of the Gujarati language knowing friend assistant to the petitioner at the impugn quasi-judicial inquiry;
(II) And in furtherance to that your lordships may pass any appropriate order in accordance with the law of the Indian soil; And for this kind act of kindness of my lords the petitioner is ever duty bound and shall ever pray;"
2. Heard party in person - Chandraprakash Gangasing Makwana and Ms. Hansa Punani, learned AGP appearing on advance copy. At the request of the party in person, the inquiry officer has directed him to remain present with the next friend on 16.1.2012 and filed written submissions. The party in person further submits that on that very day, he has sent the application Annexure P-10 (Page 32 of the paper book) and desires to cross-examine the witnesses as he is inhabitant of Rajasthan and is not acquainted with Gujarati language. The said application as per the record of the petition is still pending before the inquiry officer and no further proceedings are taken. The party in person on inquiry from the Court submits that he has not reported before the inquiry officer on 16.1.2012 as he was busy in filing the present petition.
3. Considering the facts narrated in the petition, the prayers prayed for is premature in the sense that the inquiry officer has not taken any decision whether to permit him to have benefit of supplementary cross-examination/reexamination of the witnesses, which according to party in person is done in Gujarati language by him. Hence, without going into the merits of the application dated 3.1.2012 (Page 32 of the paper book), the petition is dismissed at this stage as it is premature. It would be open for the party in person to request the inquiry officer for the reliefs that are prayed for in the application dated 3.1.2012 (Annexure P-10) as well as the prayers which are prayed for in the present petition.
4. Ms.
Hansa Punani, learned AGP submits that the inquiry officer has already permitted the next friend who possesses knowledge of Gujarati language to appear before him on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top