SCA/8670/2000 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8670 of 2000 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 ? ========================================= VALSAD JILLA ADIVASI RACHNATAMAK SAMITI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ========================================= Appearance : MR BHARAT T RAO for the Petitioner MR AA DAVE, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 MR JIVANLAL M PATEL for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 20/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present petition is filed by Valsad Jilla Adivasi Rachnatamak Samiti – a trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Trible Development Department dated 27.07.2000. SCA/8670/2000 2/5 JUDGMENT 2. The fact of the case are that the petitioner trust was permitted to run an 'Ashram Shala' by respondent No.4 herein, i.e. Sarvodaya Kelavani Mandal of village Rohina, Tal.: Pardi, Dist.: Valsad. It appears that there was some difference of opinion between the petitioner trust and respondent No.4 trust, who had earlier permitted the petitioner trust to run Ashram Shala, which was granted in favour of respondent No.4 trust. 2.1 The matter came up before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.9163 of 1998 as the department had passed an order dated 17.10.1998. The challenge was on the ground that order dated 17.10.1998 was passed by the authority without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (of that petition, who is petitioner in this petition also). 2.2 The matter was heard and decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 29.12.1999 and the Court passed the following order:- “For the aforesaid reasons, this application is required to be allowed. The same is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 17th October, 1998, copy of which is produced at Annexure-F Page 85 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Deputy Secretary, Tribal Caste Development, is hereby directed to hear the parties again affording reasonable opportunity to submit and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the SCA/8670/2000 3/5 JUDGMENT communication of this order. Rule accordingly is made absolute.” 3. Mr.Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that immediately after the order was passed on 29.12.1999, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 27.01.2000, a copy of which is at Annexure-I to this petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner complains that the authority did not afford effective hearing inasmuch as, it did not take into consideration the written as well as oral submissions made by the petitioner and passed the order which is under challenge in this petition dated 27.07.2000 at Annexure-K. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to a paragraph wherein it is stated that the hearing was fixed on 23.03.2000 at 03.00 pm and the representatives of the institution were heard by the Deputy Secretary. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner then invited attention of the Court to the fact that the authority concerned has brushed aside the grievance of the petitioner by saying that the petitioner has not made any truthful, new and substantive representation against the decision of the authority of handing over the Ashram Shala to respondent No.4. The authority also observed in the impugned order that the petitioner continued to play the same old tune that the order is vitiated on account of political influence. The learned advocate for the petitioner could successfully SCA/8670/2000 4/5 JUDGMENT demonstrate that the submissions made in the written representation dated 27.01.2000 were not considered by the authority. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that now that the considerable time has passed and the officer concerned also must have changed, it will be in the fitness of things if the Court directs the officer, other then the one who heard and decided the matter, to take into consideration all the relevant aspects and decide the matter afresh, so that the grievance of the petitioner may stand ventilated. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that he is hopeful of getting much awaited justice at the hands of the authority because there is some favourable development in favour of the petitioner and the contesting respondents have also realized their mistake and they are likely not to pursue their opposition. 6. Having gone through order dated 27.07.2000 and having perused the written representation and the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.07.2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority to decide afresh as early as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is made absolute. No costs. SCA/8670/2000 5/5 JUDGMENT At the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is clarified that it will be open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the authority, which will be taken into consideration by the authority. (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole