LPA/517/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 517 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22923 of 2006 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 518 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22925 of 2006 To LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 522 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22929 of 2006 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5113 of 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 517 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14993 of 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 517 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14994 of 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 518 of 2007 To CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14998 of 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 522 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= LPA/517/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT CHHOTA UDEPUR NAGARPALIKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER - Appellant(s) Versus BARIA MANHARSINH MAGANSINH & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR Jagdish Mehta for MR VIREN G DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1, MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6. MR GIRISH K PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 08/02/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Heard the learned advocates. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeals are heard and decided today by this common judgment. This group of Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are preferred by the Chhota Udepur Nagarpalika (hereinafter referred to as, “the Municipality”) against the six workmen, the petitioners in the above Special Civil Applications, to challenge the common order dated 8th November, 2006 made by the learned Single Judge in the above Special LPA/517/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT Civil Applications. The writ petitions were preferred by individual workman employed by the Municipality on daily wages. They sought regularisation in service. The petitioners relied upon the Government Order dated 22nd January, 2004 and the communication dated 21st February, 2004. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the Municipality “to pass appropriate orders of regularizing the service of existing employees as per letter dated 21.2.2004 of State Government addressed to Director of respondent Nagarpalika.” The Municipality has been further directed “to implement the Resolution of State Government dated 22.11.2004 and also to implement the order dated 21.2.2004 of State Government addressed to Director of respondent Nagarpalika and grant the benefits which are available to the concerned employees as per existing mehkam/sanction by State Government by order dated 21.2.2000. It is further directed to the respondent Nagarpalika to pass appropriate orders within a period of 2 months from the date of receiving the copy of this order.” LPA/517/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT The main challenge to the aforesaid order is that the said order has been made ex-parte without calling upon the Municipality to answer the writ petitions. Mr.Mehta has submitted that the Municipality has no authority to make appointments beyond the setup sanctioned by the State Government. In view of the impugned order made by the learned Single Judge, the Municipality had made a proposal to the State Government to permit regularisation of daily wage employees. The said proposal has been rejected by the State Government under its communication dated 29th November, 2007 addressed to the Chief Officer of the Municipality. It is not disputed that the above referred directions in the nature of writ of mandamus have been issued by the learned Single Judge ex-parte, without affording opportunity of hearing to the Municipality. In our opinion, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside for violation of principle of natural justice alone. LPA/517/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT In above view of the matter, the Appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 8th November, 2006 made by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Applications is quashed and set-aside. Civil Applications are disposed of. Learned advocate Mr.Girish Patel appearing for the respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No.517/2007 states that in view of the order dated 29th November, 2007 the writ petitioners are now required to challenge the said order also. The petitioners shall, therefore, file substantive petitions in the subject matter. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr.Patel, the Special Civil Applications are disposed of. It is clarified that the writ petitioners shall have liberty to file substantive proceeding in the subject matter of the above writ petitions and will also have liberty to challenge the order dated 29th November, 2007 made by the State Government. LPA/517/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) /moin