IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 278 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/-
==============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO
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 ? NO
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ============================================================== PATNI VITHALBHAI DEVRAJBHAI Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO THE SECRETARY & 2 Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance:
Mr. Hemant Makwana for Mr.Prakash Chavda, for the petitioner Mr. Ronak Raval, AGP for the respondents ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 04/12/2012 CAV JUDGEMENT
1. Heard Mr. Hemant Makwana, learned Advocate for Mr.Prakash Chavda, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
“(a) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit the present petition.
(b) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of certiorari directing the respondent authorities to issue a letter of allotment of residential plot on fulfillment of the criteria laid down by the government in various notification as issued from time to time in this regard.
(c) Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Office of the District Collector, Gandhinagar.
(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a letter of allotment of residential plot to the petitioner in view of the notification dated 29.6.1988 as amended from time to time.
(e) Your Lordship may be pleased to Grant such other and further relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under.
4. That the petitioner is at present working as Junior Clerk in the office of Vigilance Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Gandhinagar since 1993. It appears from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the said office in the year 1982.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that,pursuant to the Scheme of the State Government for providing residential plots to the employees of Sachivalaya whose services were non -transferable, a Notification came to be issued on 27.12.2001 by Roads & Buildings Department of the State of Gujarat and the applications were invited from the eligible employees within prescribed time limit and it was also provided that the concerned department should forward the applications so made within a period of fifteen days from the date of its receipt.
6. It further reveals that the petitioner who was a class IV employee then, filed an application for allotment of plot on 31.3.1990. It is the case of the petitioner that other employees viz. Patni Somabhai Mafatbhai and Shri Patni Dashrathbhai Lallubhai also filed similar applications. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the said application the affidavits were filed disclosing that the petitioner did not own any house or flat in the City, which was one of the requirements of the Notification. It is the case of the petitioner that such an application along with documents was submitted by the petitioner on 29.3.1990, however, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected and the respondent authorities responded for the first time only in the year 2011 by impugned communication dated 29.3.2011. Being aggrieved by the same the present petition is filed.
7. Mr. Makwana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order/communication impugned is unjust, illegal and contrary to law. Mr Makwana further submitted that the respondent authorities have committed grave error in rejecting the application on the ground that it was not made within the time limit prescribed by the Government vide its resolution dated 29.6.1988. Mr. Makwana further submitted that the petitioner had filed all necessary documents and the same were filed within the time prescribed in the said Notification. Mr.
Makwana further relying upon subsequent Notification contended that cut-off date came to be extended. Mr. Makwana further contended that by subsequent Notification dated 10.2.1999 the State of Gujarat extended time limit upto 31.5.1999 whereby opportunity was given to government employees for making an application for allotment of plot in respective category which also includes category to which the petitioner belongs.
8. Mr. Makwana, learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that a similarly situated person i.e. Dashrathbhai Patni who also filed an application on the same day i.e. 31.3.1990 has been granted a plot by the respondents. Mr. Makwana therefore submitted that such action on the part of the respondent authority is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the impugned order is nothing but result of total non application of mind. Mr. Makwana submitted that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner only on the ground of delay is erroneous. Mr. Makwana also further contended that even the decision was never conveyed to the petitioner till 2011. No other or further submissions have been made by Mr. Makwana, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
9. Per contra Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner filed an application on 31.3.1990 on the basis of Notification dated 29.6.1988. Mr. Raval relying upon the policy decision taken by the State Government vide Notification dated 29.3.2001 contended that all applications which were pending automatically stood rejected. Mr. Raval further relying upon the said decision of the State Government further contended that the petitioner has not filed his application before 31.12.1988 and therefore the orders impugned are legal and proper. Mr. Raval further contended that the extension of time was provided by the Government only to the category of persons mentioned in the Notification dated 23.1.1990. However, as the petitioner has continued in service all throughout and as the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories which are mentioned in the Notification dated 23.1.1990, the petitioner cannot take shelter of the said extension of time. Mr. Raval further contended that the case of the petitioner is not discriminated by the authorities. Mr. Raval further relying upon the averments made in the Affidavit-in- Reply submitted that Mr. Dashrathbhai Patni had again applied on 3.1.2002 as per the policy decision of the State Government declared vide Notification dated 29.3.2001 and 27.12.2001. Mr. Dashrathbhai Patni has been allotted the plot as per the said policy decision. Mr. Raval submitted that said Shri Dashrathbhai Patni has already been allotted plot and has already taken over possession of the same and even sanad has been issued as averred in the Affidavit-in-Reply. Mr. Raval therefore submitted that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Mr. Raval contended that the petitioner had constructive knowledge about the policy decision of the State Government as regards the policy of the State Government and more particularly Notification dated 10.2.1999 and subsequent Notification to the effect that the same applies only in case of particular class of the employees who were not in continuous service, but were sent out of sachivalaya on deputation.
10. Considering the submissions made by both the learned Counsels and considering the resolutions which are on record of the petition, it transpires that by Notification dated 29.6.1988 the Government took policy decision for allotment of plot admeasuring 200 to 330 sq. mtrs. in Gandhinagar for different categories. It is an admitted position that the petitioner applied for allotment of residential plot vide application dated 31.3.1990. It further transpires that as per resolution dated 29.6.1988 time limit to apply was 30.12.1988. However, it was found that some employees who were working at Gandhinagar were either sent on deputation in the State or outside the State and who qualified as per the resolution dated 29.6.1988 could apply by 30.12.1988 and hence only for such employees the time was extended. It also further transpires from the record of the petition that by Notification dated 10.2.1999 time came to be extended till 31.5.1999.
11. It also further transpires that by Government Resolution dated 29.3.2001 the Government amended the policy for allotment of residential plots on concessional rates, wherein, in the said resolution itself, it is interalia provided that all applications which were pending before Collector, Gandhinagar as well as resolution dated 10.2.1999 stood cancelled.
12. It further transpires that again by resolution dated 27.12.2001 the Government took fresh policy decision for allotment of residential plots on concessional rate without any occasion to employees who were working at Gandhinagar and whose services were non-transferable. It further transpires that as per the said policy decision the applications were to be filed within thirty days.
13. In the background of such policy decision taken by the State Government on various dates it transpires that eligible employees were given benefit of this benevolent scheme of the State Government for acquiring residential plots at Gandhinagar on concessional rates. In the factual matrix of the present petition the petitioner has been working at Gandhinagar continuously. On reading the resolution dated 29.6.1988 as well as Government Resolution dated 10.2.1999 time limit which was fixed as per resolution dated 29.6.1988 stood extended till 31.5.1999. However, it also transpires that by resolution dated 29.3.2001 all pending applications stood automatically rejected. It also clearly borne out from the record that the petitioner had not given any application before 31.12.1988 but had filed the application claiming allotment of residential plot on the basis of resolution dated 29.6.2988 on 31.3.1990. The petitioner has not been able to point out that he falls within any of the category of class of employees which were given benefit of extension vide resolution dated 23.1.1990 and it is also not the case of the petitioner that he was sent out of Gandhinagar or out of State on deputation because of which he could not file application within stipulated time. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the petitioner has based the petition as if the petitioner had applied as per the policy decision taken by the State Government vide Notification dated 27.12.2001 as can be seen even from the list of events appended to the petition. It is however an admitted position that except the application dated 31.3.1990 which was pending and which stood cancelled as per Government Resolution dated 29.3.2001 the petitioner has not filed any other application pursuant to the Government Resolutions dated 29.3.2001 and 27.12.2001. The contention raised by Mr. Makwana for the petitioner that the petitioner is also entitled to benefit of resolution dated 23.1.1990 therefore fails.
14. The other contention raised by Mr. Makwana to the effect that Mr. Dashrathbhai Patni has been allotted plot who was co-applicant with the petitioner, on examination of the documents, which are produced by respondents along with their affidavit, reveal that the said Mr. Patni applied afresh for allotment of plot vide application dated 3.1.2002 on the basis of resolution dated 29.3.2001 and 27.12.2001 and the said application was granted and said Mr. Patni has been allotted residential plot. Hence, the case of the petitioner and case of Mr. Patni are based on different policy decisions of the State Government. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been working in Gandhinagar all throughout and therefore had constructive knowledge of the policy decision enunciated by the State Government vide resolutions dated 29.3.2001 and 27.12.2001 and petitioner could have applied for allotment of the plot as per Government Resolution dated 29.3.2001 and 27.12.2001 as the application filed by the petitioner on 31.3.1990 stood automatically cancelled as same was pending before District Collector, Gandhinagar.
15. In view of the foregoing, the impugned decision dated 29.3.2011 is in consonance with the policy of the Government as applicable to the petitioner. The contention raised by the petitioner that the same is not rejected on justifiable ground therefore fails. The petitioner would have been entitled to the benefit of the Scheme of the Government as per resolution and conditions attached therewith and as the petitioner has not adhered to the same the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of being allotted residential plot in Gandhinagar on concessional basis. From the foregoing, therefore, the case of Mr. Dashrathbhai Patni and the petitioner is different and the impugned decision is correct and the same cannot be termed as arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It therefore transpires from the record of the petition that the impugned decision taken by the authorities is as per the policy of the Government and the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed in the petition.
16. The petition therefore is devoid of any merits and it fails and is hereby rejected. Notice discharged with no order as to costs.
(R.M. Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT