SCA/945520/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9455 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= NOSHIR B DORDEE - Petitioner(s) Versus JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & 18 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR.K.N. DASTOOR WITH MR.VISHWAS K SHAH for Petitioner. None for Respondent(s) : 1,3 - 19. MR RS SANJANWALA for Respondent(s) : 2, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 21/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr.K.N.Dastoor, learned Advocate with Mr.V.K.Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr.M.I.Marchant, learned Advocate for respondents No.3 to 11. SCA/945520/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Rule. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent No.1- Joint Charity Commissioner, who is not a contesting party. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further seeks permission to delete respondents No.12 to 19 who were the objectors and are not contesting. The request is granted. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal decided an appeal bearing No.TEN/ AS/ 5/ 2007 by judgment and order dated 4.6.2008 without granting opportunity of hearing to the applicants, that resulted into violation of principles of natural justice. Only on that point, this matter deserves to be allowed. 5. Taking into consideration the contents of paragraph (un- numbered) of the judgement and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, where it is mentioned that on the date of hearing of appeal, neither learned advocate Mr.V.K. Shah nor the applicants were present. It is stated in the said para that one Mr.K.P. Bhatiya, Junior Advocate was appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr.V.K. Shah in the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded that Mr.K.P. Bhatiya did not have a transfer or a proxy with him, and therefore, his presence and request was ignored. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal proceeded with the judgement and order and dismissed the appeal. On the face of it, the judgement and order is in violation of principles of natural justice and it is quashed and set aside. 6. The matter is remitted back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal SCA/945520/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT for its fresh consideration in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in its order dated 4.6.2008. It is directed that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal shall give sufficient opportunity to all the parties to present their case and shall decide the matter in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations/ directions made hereinabove. 7. At this stage, Mr.Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 requested that a direction may be given to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to decide the matter within a prescribed time frame. It is not possible for this Court to fix the time table of the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. But at the same time, it is deemed fit to take assurance from the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the respondents that their counterparts will extend their cooperation to the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to see that the matter is heard and decided as expeditiously as possible. It is agreed between the learned advocates for the parties that initially they will appear before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 5th August, 2008 and thereafter they will appear on the dates which would be scheduled by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal for hearing of the matter. 8. With the above observations and directions Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim