Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2013
  6. /
  7. January

Selvel Media Services Pvt Ltd vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 4

High Court Of Gujarat|18 September, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10495 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================ SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT LTD Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MS J.S.UNWALA WITH TEJAL A VASHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR UTKARSH SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4 - 5 MR UDAY JOSHI FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 5 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 18/09/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. The present petition was filed being aggrieved by communication dated 12.4.2013, communication dated 20.5.2013 and order dated 28.6.2013; whereby, 5 years contract of the petitioner was terminated by the authorities.
2. Not only the contract was terminated but the authorities acting in a manner which is not known to law uprooted not only the kiosks but also the plantation.
3. The Court felt that it requires an urgent interference and therefore, the Corporation was directed to restore status-quo ante qua plants as well as kiosks, the same was done.
4. The question remains, the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner on 20th May, 2013, giving him one day’s time to file reply and before that is done, by passing the order impugned of terminating the contract can be allowed to stand? (emphasis supplied).
5. In light of the settled position of law, the authorities issuing show cause notice must give sufficient time and opportunity to the party to explain and if required, personal hearing also, before an order is passed.
6. In view of that, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr.Joshi, waives service of rule on behalf of Corporation.
8. At the request of learned advocate Mr.Unwala to which learned advocate Mr.Joshi has no objection, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that notice gave one day's time to file explanation and the very same notice culminated into the order impugned (order dated 20th June, 2013), the same is quashed and set aside.
10 The authorities are directed to give not only sufficient time to file response to that notice dated 20th May, 2013 but also personal hearing. It will be in fitness of things if the Commissioner grants hearing in the matter. It will be open for the authorities to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
11. At the request of the learned advocate, Mr.Unwala, it is clarified that authorities while doing so, need not be influenced by the fact that petitioner was constrained to approach this Court and the Court was required to pass mandatory order of restoring status quo ante qua kiosks as well as plantation.
12. It will be in the fitness of things if the petitioner files his reply to the notice dated 20th May, 2013 by 14th October, 2013. After the reply is filed, the authority-
Commissioner to give personal hearing to the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the reply and then, pass an order in accordance with law.
13. With these directions, petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) ashish (MOHINDER PAL, J.)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Judges
  • Mohinder Pal
  • Ravi R Tripathi
Advocates
  • Ms J S Unwala
  • Tejal A Vashi