SCA/7397/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7397 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= BARODA ASSOCIATION FOR BLIND THR' ITS PRESIDENT - Petitioner(s) Versus ASSTT.CHARITY COMMISSIONER & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS MANISHA SHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 12/09/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this petition, the petitioner Association has challenged the proceedings and the order passed by SCA/7397/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT respondent No.1 with respect to change reports No.309 to 313 of 2003 filed by respondent No.2. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 condoned the delay in submission of the said change reports without a reasoned order and without hearing the petitioner. It is contended that the change reports were submitted many years after the event and there was gross delay in filing such change reports. It is, therefore, primarily contended that respondent No.1 could not have condoned the delay, that too without hearing the petitioner. 3. I have heard Shri PK Desai, party-in-person, on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Shah for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served has remained ex-parte. 4. It appears that there is no dispute about the main averments of the petitioner that delay was condoned by respondent No.1 without hearing the petitioner and that there was substantial delay in SCA/7397/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT filing the change reports. It is also not urged before this Court that the petitioner was not required to be heard before condoning the delay. Considering these aspects of the matter, the order passed by respondent No.1 condoning the delay is required to be set aside. 5. Upon perusal of the document at Annexure D to the petition, it can be seen that respondent No.2 had prayed for condonation of delay by an application made on 7.2.2004. In that application all that was stated was that in submitting the change report, on account of oversight, bona fide there was delay, the same should therefore be condoned. On this application, respondent No.1 passed a cryptic order stating "granted". Thus the application for condonation of delay itself did not disclose sufficient particulars. The order passed by respondent No.1 also did not indicate any reason for condoning the delay and the petitioner herein though indicated as a party in the said application and was otherwise also vitally concerned with the change reports was given no hearing. SCA/7397/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated 7.2.2004 is quashed. It would be open for respondent No.2, however, to make a proper application for condonation of delay which may be considered by respondent No.1, if so made, after hearing the petitioner. 7. In the result,the petition is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)