SCA/1007320/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10073 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= HEAD MASTER - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MEHUL H RATHOD for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR CHHAYA, AGP Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 06/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned APP, Mr.Chhaya, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. SCA/1007320/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 27.6.2008 passed by Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to the said order in which it is recorded that on the date of hearing of 10th June, 2008, no one was present for the petitioner. 4. On the basis of averments made in the ground “H” of the petition and on the basis of original communication of the date of hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the communication was received by the petitioner only on 12th June, 2008. He, therefore, submitted that it was for valid reason that on one had remained present before the Secretary on 10th June, 2008 since the date of hearing was no communicated to the petitioner till that date. 5. Only on this ground, without expressing any opinion on the contentions of the petitioner with respect to the legality of the order passed by the Secretary, impugned order dated 27.6.2008 is set aside. The Authority is requested to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. Tentative date of hearing, is fixed on 29th August, 2008 on which date if it is not convenient to Secretary to hear proceedings, it will be open for her to fix fresh date for this purpose. Petitioner shall, however, not insist on being communicated the date of hearing of 29th August, 2008 nor shall petitioner ask for adjournment on his side. SCA/1007320/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 6. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above limited extent. Direct service. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) ashish//