Allowed

Subhashchandra Ishudas Parmar v. State of Gujarat Thro the Secretary

Gujarat HC9 Feb 2012SCA/18287/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition wherein the petitioner, a former marriage registrar, challenged the cancellation of his license. The Court held that without proof of the bride's conversion or appropriate sacraments, the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice or cancel the license.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the license dated 19.10.2011 is quashed and set aside, and the petition is allowed.

Subhashchandra Ishudas Parmar Vs State of Gujarat… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/18287/2011

¶2

1/7

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18287 of 2011

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT

¶8

=========================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge}

¶14

¶15

=========================================================

¶16

SUBHASHCHANDRA ISHUDAS PARMAR - Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

STATE OF GUJARAT THRO THE SECRETARY & 1 - Respondents

¶19

=========================================================

¶20

Appearance :

¶21

MR SAURABH M PATELfor Petitioner
MS ASMITA PATEL AGP for Respondent : 1
NOTICE SERVED for Respondents : 1 - 2.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondents : - 2

¶22

=========================================================

¶23

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT

¶24

Date : 09/02/2012

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

1.Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. Rule is fixed forthwith.

¶27

SCA/18287/2011

¶28

2/7

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

2.Heard learned advocate for the parties.

¶31

3.The petitioner, who is an ex-licensee under
the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, has
approached this Court by way of this petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with following prayers;

¶32

“(A) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a
writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of certiorari or mandamus, and/or
any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure-
B) passed by the respondent No.1-
Authoritybearing

¶33

No.GK./27/2011/ICM/1098/860/D as well as
impugned order dated 27.07.2010 bearing
No.POL(1)/3752/2010passedbythe
respondent No.2-District Magistrate and
further to restore the status of the
petitionerasGovernmentMarriage
Registrar as per the Notification dated
08.12.1999 (Annexure-A);

¶34

(B) Pending admission hearing and final
disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to stay the further
implementation, execution and operation
of the impugned order dated 19.10.2011
(Annexure-B) passed by the respondent
No.1-AuthoritybearingNo.
GK./27/2011/ICM/1098/860/D as well as
impugned order dated 27.07.2010 bearing
No.POL(1)/3752/2010passedbythe
respondent No.2-District Magistrate and
further to restore the status of the
petitionerasGovernmentMarriage
Registrar as per the Notification dated
08.12.1999 (Annexure-A);

¶35

(C) Be pleased to grant ex-parte interim

¶36

SCA/18287/2011

¶37

3/7JUDGMENT

¶38

relief in terms prayer clause (B)
hereinabove;

¶39

(D) Grant such further and other relief
as may be deemed fit in the interest of
justice.”

¶40

4.Facts in brief leading to filing this
petition, as could be culled out from memo of
petition, deserve to be set out as under;

¶41

 The petitioner was holding license under
the said Act for performing marriage ceremony
and solemnizing the marriage. The petitioner
was doing his job under the licence issued to
him. On 10.02.2009, the petitioner issued a
certificate in respect of marriage between
one Pinakin Macwan and Vishrutiben Shukla in
presence of Vishrutiben Shukla's mother i.e.
Kailashben A.Shukla to sign as a witness. The
requisite entries were made in the Marriage
Register Book under the Act. The requisite
formality of age etc. were done by the said
Vishrutiben Shukla and after performing all
these formalities, the marriage was
solemnized. The said Vishrutiben Shukla
married to Macwan not after her conversion,
as it is permissible under Section 4 of the
Indian Christian Marriage Act that even a non

¶42

Christian can marry Christian and non
Christian need not under go conversion for
these reasons. The conversion is not to be

¶43

SCA/18287/2011

¶44

4/7

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

effected without obtaining appropriate
permission from the District Magistrate as
stipulated under Section 5 of the Gujarat
Freedom of Religion Act, 2003. In the
instant case, as said Vishrutiben was not
marrying after her conversion nor was she
converted, the marriage was solemnized as no
permission of District Magistrate was
required. The petitioner received a letter
dated 12.05.2011 calling upon the petitioner
to show cause in respect of the statement
made in the communication dated 27.07.2010 to
the District Magistrate, Kheda, in which,

¶47

throughaffidavitsheacceptedthe
Christianity. The petitioner answered the
notice and ultimately it culminated into
passing of the impugned order dated 19.10.2011
under which the license was cancelled, hence,
the present petition.

¶48

5.This Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
issued notice on 23.12.2011. When the matter
was listed before this Court, this Court
passed the following order:

¶49

“Shri Saurabh M.Patel, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner seeks time
to place on record material indicating
clearly the whether non Christian
marrying a Christian would ipso facto to
be treated as having been converted into
Christianity. At his request matter is

¶50

SCA/18287/2011

¶51

5/7

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

kept on 25.01.2012.”

¶54

6.Apropos the order, further affidavit is filed
at page no.62, wherein the deponent of the
affidavit i.e. petitioner has in paragraph
no.2 narrated the entire procedure for
conversion that shows that conversion to
Christianity is a specific procedure. The
sacrament required to be performed by the
concerned authorized bishop and the
petitioner is admittedly not a bishop nor a
person authorized under the provision for
conversion and hence there ought not to have
been question of converting said Vishrutiben.
The State has not filed any affidavit-in-
reply controverting this position. In fact,
in my opinion that the concerned authority,
before cancelling license, should have
inquired and recorded its satisfaction with
regard to the conversion of Vishrutiben into
Christianity by the appropriate sacrament
ceremony. In absence of any proof that
Vishrutiben was in fact converted into
Christianity against her will, he could not
have been proceeded in any manner. Even the

¶55

show cause notice itself was without
jurisdiction, as there existed no proof of
Vishrutiben under going any ceremony for
conversion into Christianity. When these
facts were not existing before authority, the

¶56

SCA/18287/2011

¶57

6/7

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

authority did not have any jurisdiction to
issue notice in form of show cause notice.

¶60

7. In my view, the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction. When the show cause notice was without jurisdiction, the reasoned order which is passed without ascertaining these facts is also sheer, non application of mind on the part of the concerned authority. The petitioner was unnecessarily compelled to come to the Court, as the cancelling his license is not justified at all.

¶61

8.This Court is of the considered view that petition is required to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The order impugned dated 19.10.2011 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

¶62

9.Learned advocate for the petitioner is not
insisted for cost, hence no cost is awarded,
as the petitioner's advocate has fairly
submitted that the cost is not prayed. The
consequences of this petition would amount to
reviving the license as it is, and no formal
license is now required to be obtained. The
license is revived. Direct service is
permitted.

¶63

SCA/18287/2011

¶64

7/7

¶65

JUDGMENT

¶66

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.)

¶67

Pankaj

Subhashchandra Ishudas Parmar v. State of Gujarat Thro the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhashchandra Ishudas Parmar v. State of Gujarat Thro the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janta Automobiles through Partner Abdul Rehman Ahmedbhai Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through General Manager

Sudhaben Kiritbhai Parmar Shree Laxmi Sakhi Mandal Vs State of Gujarat Thro the Additional Secretary

Dharnanatbhai Bhimshibhai Gojiya Vs State of Gujarat Thro the Addl.Director

Hardik Kanubhai Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Hardik Kanubhai Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Nishant Vasudev Thakkar Vs State of Gujarat - through Chief Controlling Revenue