1. Present order is passed without prejudice to the contentions as regards delay in preferring present petition.
2. The copy of petition appears to have been served to the office of Government Pleader on 21/02/2012, and; after hearing learned advocate for the petitioner, the Court (Coram:R.M.Chhaya, J.) directed the office to issue notice to the respondents. The notice was made returnable on 15/03/2012. Since then, despite adjournment at the request of learned AGP, until now, any reply affidavit contesting the petition has not been filed, and; despite the fact that on earlier occasion an order has been passed with a direction to forward copy of the said order to the learned Government Pleader, taking note of the peculiar reply being given to the Court and peculiar method to put question mark in the cause list against the listed matters and not providing the files of the case. In this case also the said practice is followed and it is submitted that papers are not received and question mark is put in the cause list, therefore, the Court is compelled to pass present order.
3. Sufficient adjournments have been granted to file reply affidavit and yet any reply has not been filed.
4. Ms.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that present petition is identical to the group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.14957 of 2010 and allied matters which came to be decided by the Court vide order dated 25/01/2011 and thereafter the petitioner had made representation to extend similar direction to the petitioner as was granted by the authorities to the petitioners in the aforesaid group of petitions, after the decision by the Court.
5. Needless to say that by earlier orders in various petitions it is clarified and directed that the authorities and respondent State in cases where persons who have not approached the Court but are similarly placed should not be denied benefit of the decision of the Court merely on the ground that he/she was not one of the petitioners before the Court and if the benefit of the judgment is otherwise available to other persons, then, though they were not before the Court, such benefit should be extended to them without requiring the persons to approach the Court.
6. In present case the respondent authorities do not appear to have acted in consonance with the said directions by the Court.
7. Learned advocate Ms.Shah has submitted that case of present petitioner is directly and squarely covered within the purview of the decision dated 25/01/2011 passed by the Court in aforesaid group of the petitions.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, Rule returnable on 09/05/2012.
9. It is clarified that if any objection is not filed on or before 25/04/2012 (after service of copy of reply to the petitioner), appropriate orders in consonance with the decision dated 25/01/2011 will be passed by the Court and in the event the petition is allowed in absence of any reply, then Court may consider the option of passing appropriate order of imposing cost against the concerned officer responsible to file reply affidavit.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top