(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioner has prayed for declaration that Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, are invalid and for quashing of recovery certificate issued by the respondent No.4.
It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.2105 of 2011 in the City Civil Court for declaration that by virtue of fabricated loan document, the said recovery certificate has been issued. In other words, according to the petitioner, he is not the real guarantor but his signature has been forged.
Such being the position, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot challenge the provisions of the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, as invalid as he has no locus standi when he himself is claiming by filing a Civil Suit that he is not a guarantor under the said Act and his signature has been forged.
We, thus, find that at the instance of the petitioner this application is not maintainable for want of locus standi.
Without entering into merits, we dismiss this application on that ground alone. We further make it clear that we have also not gone into the merits of the aspect as to whether the petitioner's signature has been really forged or not and it is for the appropriate Court to decide such aspect where the litigation is pending.
The application is, thus, dismissed on the above ground.
(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Acting C.J.) (J.B.
Pardiwala, J.) Aakar Top