1. Heard Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Apurva Kapadia for the petitioner, Mr. Padmraj K. Jadeja, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP for respondent Nos.5, 6, 15 and 16 and Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned advocate for respondent Nos.7, 8/1 to 8/5. Mr. Sanjanwala seeks permission to delete respondent Nos.9 to 14 at this stage.
2. By an order dated 13.4.2012, this Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) has passed the following order:-
"1. Mr.Apurva R. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner, states that he may be permitted to join the State of Gujarat, through the concerned Secretary and the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), as party respondents Nos.15 and 16.
2. Permission to do so, is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith.
3. Heard Mr.R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Apurva R. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that while passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2011 (26.07.2011), the petitioner was joined as party respondent by allowing his application. However, by the same order, stay has been granted in favour of respondent No.1 without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to make submissions against the grant of stay.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner, thereafter, made an application for vacation of the interim order. Instead of issuing notice upon the said application and calling upon the respective parties to make their submissions, an informal communication dated __.01.2012 signed by some person on behalf of the Secretary has been issued to the petitioner, wherein it is stated that, as the stay order was granted after hearing the parties, the same cannot be vacated, and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can approach the appropriate Court. It is contended that the petitioner has not been heard before the stay order was granted, nor before passing the order on his application for vacation of the interim relief. As a quasi-judicial authority, notice ought to have been issued and the parties heard before passing a formal order.
Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have been heard before issuing the said communication.
5. Issue Notice, returnable on 09.05.2012.
6. By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that the impugned order dated 25.07.2011 (26.07.2011) and the impugned communication dated ___.01.2012 shall remain stayed, till then.
7. In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted."
3. In response to the same, Mr. Padmraj K. Jadeja, learned advocate appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Ms. Asmita Patel, learned AGP appears for respondent Nos.5, 6, 15 and 16 as well as Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned advocate appears for respondent Nos.7, 8/1 to 8/5. Considering the fact that the present petition is filed against the grant of status quo by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dated 25/26.7.2011 which has been stayed by an order dated 13.4.2012 as above, interest of justice would be served if instead of examining the matter on merits, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) is directed to expedite the hearing of main Revision Application. Learned counsel appearing for the parties neither objected to such a course being adopted by this Court nor invite any reasoned order for giving such a direction. Hence, the following directions are issued:-
[A] The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) on or before 23.7.2012.
[B] On receipt of copy of this order, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) shall fix the main Revision Application pending before it and shall hear, decide and dispose of the said Revision Application as expeditiously as possible preferably latest by 31.12.2012.
4. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Apurva Kapadia for the petitioner, Mr. Padmraj K. Jadeja, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned advocate for respondent Nos.7, 8/1 to 8/5 assure this Court that the parties before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) shall cooperate with the hearing and shall not ask for any adjournment, except under unavoidable circumstances.
5. As other respondents are not a party to this proceeding and have been deleted at the request of the petitioner, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) shall also intimate about this order to them as they are party respondents in the main Revision Application. Over and above this, the petitioner shall also serve a copy of this order upon them as early as possible. The parties shall file their replies and/or any documentary evidence before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by 31.7.2012.
6. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and these directions are issued with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in the interest of justice. It would be open for the parties to raise all contentions that are available in law and the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) shall decide the main Revision Application on its own merits without being influenced by the fact that this petition has been entertained by this Court.
7. Interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 13.4.2012, as observed above, shall continue till final disposal of the main Revision Application. Liberty to either parties to revive in case of any difficulty.
8. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted to the petitioner as well as the respondents.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top