Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130

Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131

Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132

Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133

Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134

LH Of Late Harijan Shivabhai Bapubhai, Harijan Vinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 135

Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal Through Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136

Judgments/Orders of the week

Illegal Mining | Seized Vehicle Must Be Released Without Bank Guarantee If FIR Not Registered Within Time Stipulated Under 2017 Rules: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Bhavinkumar Kantilal Gajera vs State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 130

The Gujarat High Court has recently explained in the context of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under Rule 12(ii) of the Rules of 2017, the competent authority will have to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee.

The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the quashment of the impugned order which seized the vehicle of the Petitioner.

S.17B ID Act | Employer Liable To Pay Wages To Workman During Pendency Of Appeal Against Labour Court's Order Of Reinstatement: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Maheshbhai Govindbhai Patel vs Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 131

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that when a Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer is be liable to pay such workman during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court.

Referring to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench comprising Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Hemant Prachchhak observed,

"Section 17B of the Act clearly provides that when the Labour Court directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman "during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court full wages last drawn by him inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period."

Seized Vehicle Should Be Handled Within 6 Months From Date Of Production Of Vehicle Before Court; Should Not Be Kept In Police Stations For Long: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 132

The Gujarat High Court while making note of the Apex Court's decision in SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT has affirmed that within a period of six months from the date of production of vehicle before the Court, the seized vehicle should be disposed of appropriately and not be kept at police stations for a long time. Further, if the vehicle is not claimed by the Accused, then the insurance company or third person can auction it under the direction of the Court.

The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J Vora made these observations while hearing a petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art 226 and the supervisory jurisdiction under Art 227 along with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of CrPC for the release of the Muddamal Vehicle.

Post Fell Vacant Before Expiry Of Wait List, Applicant Can't Suffer Due To Lapse Of Administration: Gujarat High Court Grants Relief To PWD Candidate

Case Title: Priteshkumar Bipinbhai Dave vs State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 133

The Gujarat High Court has directed its administrative department to grant appointment to the Petitioner, a physically challenged candidate, who had applied for the post of Peon (Class IV) under the Physically Handicapped category.

The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav considered that two vacancies had arisen before the expiry of the waitlist in which Petitioner's name figured at serial number 67, however, the appointment could not be made since the Recruitment Cell was not informed about the same in due time.

Gujarat High Court Restrains Recovery Under Employee's Provident Fund Act Citing Non-Availability Of Industrial Tribunal To Hear Appeals

Case Title: Sardar Patel Seva Trust Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 134

The Gujarat High Court has restrained the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from initiating recovery proceedings against an employer under Section 8(B) and 8(G) of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952, citing non availability of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav stated that in the absence of a Presiding Officer at the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the employer against recovery order could not be heard.

Gujarat High Court Directs NHAI To Re-Compute Compensation For Agricultural Land Acquired In 2014 For Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway

Case Title: LH Of Late Harijan Shivabhai Bapubhai, Harijan Vinodbhai S/O Late Zaverbhai Shivabhai Harijan Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 135

The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition of a land-owner, seeking directions to re-compute the award passed by the competent authority in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of construction of Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway.

The Petitioners sought that the compensation be revised by applying the market value of the land with Multiplier Factor-2 since the land was a 'rural area'. All other statutory benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 including solatium under Section 30(1) and interest under Section 30(3) of the Act.

'Reasonableness Tempered With Mercy': Gujarat HC Removes Ban On Woman From Appearing In Any Competitive Exam For 3 Yrs For Alleged Unfair Means

Case Title: Dharaben Dhansukhbhai Joshi Versus Gujarat Gaun Seva Pasandgi Mandal Through Secretary

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 136

In huge relief to a 29-year old woman bearing the responsibility of her ailing mother while simultaneously trying to build her career, the Gujarat High Court has removed the ban imposed on her by the State Subordinate Services Selection Board, precluding her from appearing in any competitive exam for three years. The coercive measure was taken against the woman after she was found carrying a mobile phone in one of the exams conducted by the Board.

"…was this single act of carrying a mobile phone so reprehensible that she needs to be debarred for a period of three years is the question", the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav wondered.

The Court was dealing with an Article 226 petition moved by the woman, stating that she did not resort to any unfair means and the carried the mobile inside the exam hall very inadvertently.

Other Updates from the High Court

Gujarat High Court Frames Contempt Charges Against 64 Year Old Man For Using 'Defamatory' Language Against Justice Sonia Gokani

The Gujarat High Court has framed contempt charges against a 64-year-old man (Anand H. Goswami) for using 'defamatory language' against Justice Sonia Gokani in the year 2013.

The Court found that with reference to Criminal Misc. Application No.12353 of 2012, Goswami/Respondent had, in February 2013, cast unwarranted defamatory assertion upon the character and ability of Justice Gokani.

It may be noted that the contempt case against Anand H. Goswami/Respondent was initiated in November 2013, after the HC had come to the prima facie opinion that Goswami had used contemptuous language against Justice Gokani in a communication made by him.