1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Director, Small Savings, Ahmedabad Division whereby the agency granted to the petitioner was suspended.
2.0 The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is an agent of Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana since 1984 under the small savings scheme of the Government of India. The petitioner has granted certificate of authority as an agent. On 20.10.2003, one Thakarshibhai Keshraji Dabhi filed one criminal complaint against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the City Sessions Court. On the basis of the same set of allegations, the respondent No.2 without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice suspended the certificate of authority of the petitioner by an order dated 08.12.2003. Hence, this petition.
3.0 This Court initially issued notice on 16.12.2003. It will be important to note that this Court while issuing notice, incorporated the following observations in paragraph No.6:
It is clarified that failure on the part of the respondents nos. 2 and 3 in appearing before the court and explaining the contingency brought before this court, appropriate order of interim protection will be passed o the returnable date. DS to...............
3.1 On 18.12.2003, the Court passed further order. Relevant part of which reads as under:
In view of above, in the interest of justice, the impugned order suspending the licence dated 08.12.2003 issued by respondent no.2 is hereby placed under suspension till the next date of hearing.
4.0 The matter then came up for hearing on 28.01.2004. On that day, the Court granted ad- interim stay in terms of paragraph No. 17(B), on condition that the petitioner shall not take up new clients.
5.0 On 02.11.2004, this Court after hearing the learned advocates and after taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the respondents, admitted the matter and ordered the interim relief to continue. The Court also observed that:
.......
It will be open for the respondents to conduct inquiry against the petitioner under the Rules. It will be open for the respondents to approach this Court for modification or vacating of interim relief, if the inquiry is conducted within one year from today.
6.0 As the respondents have not moved any application either for modification or vacating the interim relief, the petitioner has filed Civil Application No. 8583 of 2006 for confirmation of the ad-interim relief granted earlier.
7.0 Thereafter, on 09.07.2007 this court has passed the following order in Civil Application No. 8583 of 2006.
This application is filed for confirmation of the ad-interim relief granted earlier staying the order dated 25/7/2006. I have heard Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate for newly added respondent. Mr. Trivedi has submitted that after due inquiry carried out by respondent no. 2 the Postal Authority, the applicant has been given a clean-chit and it is held that the applicant has not committed any irregularity as alleged against her. Mr. Jadeja, however, opposes the report. He further states that newly added respondent wishes to challenge the said report by filing appropriate proceedings. However, in view of the report, the ad-interim relief is required to be confirmed and hence this application is granted and ad- interim relief granted earlier is confirmed and the applicant is now at liberty to have new clients.
It is also clarified that if any proceedings are taken up by newly added respondent to challenge the report of respondent no. 2, it will be open for the said respondent to move application for vacation of the interim relief in the event of his succeeding in proceedings challenging the said report. The said report is taken on record.
8.0 Pursuant to the above order passed by this Hon'ble Court as per the information of the applicant, Postal authority as well as the respondent No.2 herein, have already concluded the inquiry. If at all the result of inquiry would have been against the applicant, the Postal authority would have immediately filed an application for modification or vacating interim relief, as the liberty was reserved for them. This is one of the reasons that no irregularity is found against the applicant. Furthermore, the agency of the applicant was valid upto 30/06/2006 which has been further extended upto 30/06/2009.
9.0 In view of the fact that after 02.11.2004, the respondents have not moved either for modification or for vacating the interim relief, there is a reason for this Court to accept the request of the applicant original petitioner and grant the relief as prayed for.
10.0 After impleading the newly added party as respondent No.4 in the main petition, immediately thereafter the reply was filed by the respondent No.4 stating that the civil application filed by the petitioner is required to be rejected.
11.0 It is clear that as there is no irregularity found against the petitioner, there is no application filed by the respondent for vacation of interim-relief granted to the petitioner. The agency of the applicant was valid upto 30/06/2006 which has been further extended upto 30/06/2009 and further it was extended upto 30.06.2012. In that view of the matter, nothing is pointed out not to grant the prayers made in this petition. I am also of the view that the petition can be disposed of in terms of interlocutory order.
12.0 For the foregoing reasons the petitioner will be governed by the interlocutory order passed by this Court. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top