Allowed

Yusuf Jamal v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC21 Jun 2022SCA/4795/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's complaint, which was passed without a hearing despite an email scheduling one. The court held the order premature and contrary to the facts, restoring the matter for merits-based adjudication after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.12.2019 is quashed and set aside; the complaint is restored to the original file to be decided on merits after hearing.

Yusuf Jamal Vs State of Gujarat — Writ and Judicial Review | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/4795/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4795 of 2020

¶4

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

YUSUF JAMAL

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR. JAY JANI, LD. ADVOCATE FOR MR. AMIRAJ R BAROT(8575) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶11

for the Respondent(s) No. 3

¶12

MR. ADITYASINH JADEJA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

¶15

Date : 21/06/2022

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

Rule. Mr.Adityasinh Jadeja, learned AGP waives service of

¶18

notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶19

Though served, no one has chosen to appear for and on behalf of the respondent No.2, who has passed the impugned order.

¶20

At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 11^th December, 2019 is passed without hearing the petitioner and is premised on the incorrect facts. He has submitted that by email dated 9^th December, 2019, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-authority that hearing of his complaint has been scheduled on 17^th December, 2019 from

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

C/SCA/4795/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022

¶23

12:00 to 12:30 p.m. However, before 17^th December, 2019, the impugned order rejecting the complaint of the petitioner has been passed on 11^th December 2019 by observing that the petitioneroriginal complainant has remained absent.

¶24

As recorded hereinabove, the respondent No.2 has chosen not to remain present, learned AGP appearing for the respondent -State is unable to convert the aforesaid facts.

¶25

Thus, the impugned order dated 11^th December, 2019 rejecting the complaint No.CMP/Indore/190507/000143 filed by present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside, since the same has been passed before the date which was intimated to the present petitioner vide email dated 9^th December, 2019. Such approach of the respondent-authority is required to be highly deprecated, as it has acted without verification of his own record. When the petitioner was asked to remain present on 17^th December, 2019, his complaint should not have been decided on 11^th December 2019 before such date.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

C/SCA/4795/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022

¶28

Under the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and

¶29

set aside the complaint No. CMP/Indore/190507/000143 is ordered to be restored to its original file and shall be decided on merits after

¶30

hearing all the parties.

¶31

The present petition stands allowed Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶32

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

¶33

BEENA SHAH

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Yusuf Jamal v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf Jamal 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

Bhupatrai Himmatlal Sawani Vs State of Gujarat

Vanrajbhai Ramkubhai Govaliya Vs the Additional Director

Ghoghara Kalpanaben Mahendrabhai Vs State of Gujarat

Legal Heirs of Kadubhai Kanglabhai Baria Ukarbhai Kadubhai Baria through Jashubhai Ukarbhai Baria Vs State of Gujarat

Hitenkumar Ashokbhai Shah Vs Union of India

Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra Vs the Registrar, Registration of Birth and Death