Allowed

Rana Anvarbhai Vajesinh v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC5 Jul 2021LPA/1631/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that the misjoinder of issues regarding trade license cancellation and voter list rejection in a single writ petition was misconceived. The appellants were permitted to approach the Competent Authority via appropriate delay condonation applications to seek regular remedies for both matters separately.

What did the court decide?

Appellants permitted to avail regular remedy (appeal/revision) separately for trade licence cancellation and Voters' List rejection, expected to file for condonation of delay; no costs.

Rana Anvarbhai Vajesinh Vs State of Gujarat — Writ and Judicial Review | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/LPA/1631/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2021 RANA ANVARBHAI VAJESINH & 25 others vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 others

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1631 of 2017

¶4

¶5

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14210 of 2017

¶6

With

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017 In

¶8

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1631 of 2017

¶9

================================================================== RANA ANVARBHAI VAJESINH & 25 other(s) Versus

¶10

STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, Government Pleader assisted by MR KRUTIK PARIKH, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶16

and

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶18

Date : 05/07/2021

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

¶21

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order

¶22

dated 01.09.2017 of the learned Single Judge dismissing Special

¶23

Civil Application No. 14210 of 2017 filed by Mr. Anvarbhai

¶24

Vajesinh Rana & 25 others vs. State of Gujarat & 4 others .

¶25

The issue arose because of the order passed by the

¶26

Page 1 of 5

¶27

C/LPA/1631/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2021 RANA ANVARBHAI VAJESINH & 25 others vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 others

¶28

Competent Authority under provisions of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act and Rules thereunder rejecting the objections of the Petitioners vide order dated 24.07.2017 for cancellation of their Trade Licences by the Competent Authority was in close proximity of time with the order dated 07.07.2017 rejecting their objections for the Voters’ List for the elections to be held for Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Savli and thus depriving the Petitioners of their right to vote in the said election.

¶29

Since the said two issues were mingled by the Petitioners in the same writ petition, the learned Single Judge took an exception to the same and therefore dismissed the writ petition with certain observations against the Petitioners in the impugned order. The elections were actually held in 2017 against which also it appears that the Appellants / Petitioners have not availed any regular remedy by way of appeal / revision in accordance with relevant Rules.

¶30

The learned Single Judge has also noted in the impugned

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

C/LPA/1631/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2021 RANA ANVARBHAI VAJESINH & 25 others vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 others

¶33

order that against the said order dated 24.07.2017 , the Petitioners had not moved any appeal or revision before the Competent Authority.

¶34

After lapse of 4 years, now in 2021 after hearing both the learned counsel and upon the perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners / Appellants ought to have availed their alternative regular remedy under the law prescribed in such matters separately against their rejection of their separate licences as well as separately Voters’ List for the election held in 2017 for the said Market Committee. The mis-joinder of the issues in one single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was misconceived and has therefore been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge.

¶35

Upon Court’s query, Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned counsel for the Appellants fairly agreed that the Appellants / Petitioners may be permitted to avail their regular remedy even

¶36

now at this stage and the delay in filing such regular appeals or

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

C/LPA/1631/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2021 RANA ANVARBHAI VAJESINH & 25 others vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 others

¶39

revision petitions in both respects may be condoned or at least the Authority concerned may take sympathetic view in the matter.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Appellants / Petitioners can be permitted even now to avail their regular remedy prescribed under the law, of course separately by way of appeal / revision for cancellation of Trade Licences and against rejection of their objections with regard to Voters’ List for election and the Petitioners should not join the issues in such a manner, as has been done in the present writ petition. As far as the delay in availing such alternative remedy is concerned, the Appellants may file appropriate application for seeking condonation of delay before the respective Authorities / Tribunal and we expect that the said delay condonation applications will be considered sympathetically in accordance with law. We further expect that

¶41

the Authority while considering the case of the Appellants in accordance with law, may not feel prejudiced by the adverse

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

C/LPA/1631/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/07/2021 RANA ANVARBHAI VAJESINH & 25 others vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 others

¶44

observations of the learned Single Judge about the conduct of the Appellants as essentially rejection appears to be on the basis of mis-joinder of the two issues which the learned Single Judge rightly rejected.

¶45

With the aforesaid observations, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. Civil Application stands also disposed of. No costs.

¶46

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶47

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶48

Bharat

¶49

Page 5 of 5

Rana Anvarbhai Vajesinh v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rana Anvarbhai Vajesinh v. State of Gujarat

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

Kaveri Hotels Private Limited - Presently Known as Chouki Vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Shree Manohar Nathji Maharaj Akhada Trust Vs State of Gujarat

Umesh Ved Resolution Professional of Shree Ram Cement Limited Vs State of Gujarat Notice Served Thro Collector Banaskantha

Jamnagar Municipal Corporation Vs Shri 5 Navtanpuri Dham Khijada Mandir Trust

Kutchh District Panchayat Vs Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja

Ravjibhai Prabhudas Patel Since Decd.Thr'Heirs Vs Additional Collector and Competent Authority U.L.C.