Gujarat High Court Weekly Round-Up [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48 - 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 59]

Nominal Index

Dharmendra Ravipratap Rajak v. State Of Gujarat

Hirenbhai Hiteshbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service v. Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai

J. v. State Of Gujarat (Name Concealed Intentionally)

Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor v. State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)

Parulben Natwarlal Patel v. State Of Gujarat

New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Mukeshbhai Bhimsingbhai Rajput & 4 Other(S)

Solanki Vipulkumar Virabhai v. Institute Of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS)

Dinesh Sharan Thakur v. Dr. M K Shah Medical College And Research Centre

Gujarat Rajya Hotel Federation & 9 Other(S) v. State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)

Kiritkumar Ravjibhai Sharma v. Principal/Trustee Saraswati Kadavni Mandal

Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. Rmc Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.

Roundup

1. Public Interest Has Precedence Over Private Interest: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Stall Redevelopment Of Public Housing Blocks

Case Title: DHARMENDRA RAVIPRATAP RAJAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48]
The Gujarat High Court has refused to stall the redevelopment work being carried out in Public Housing Blocks, noting that public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties. Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati observed, "Some inconvenience to individual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well as public benefit has to be taken into consideration."

2. Prior Interim Protection No Ground To Grant Anticipatory Bail: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: HIRENBHAI HITESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 49]

"Merely granting protection for long time would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the Gujarat High Court has held. Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of IPC.

The Gujarat High Court has held that while exercising its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Courts/ Tribunals must factor in the nature of employment, whether public or private.

Section 11A empowers Labour Courts/ Tribunals to lessen the punishment of 'discharge or dismissal from service' for employee's misconduct and direct reinstatement on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.

4. Ensure That All Police Stations Have Lawyers' Panel To Aid Sexual Assault Victims: Gujarat High Court Directs DGP

Case title - J. v. State Of Gujarat (name concealed intentionally)

The Gujarat High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, Gujarat State to ensure that all the police stations in the state have a panel of lawyers to aid the victims of the sexual assault crimes in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 1995 decision.

The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee issued this order after noting that the Supreme Court had issued, inter alia, the following 4 directions in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 14], and which are not being followed in the state of Gujarat

5. Parties Would Be Put In 'Embarrassing Position' Not Ground To Dispense Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: MAHESHBHAI BHURJIBHAI DAMOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)

The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that in dispensing with departmental inquiry, the authority must arrive at a satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure and it must record reason to show that such satisfaction is arrived at on objective facts and not on whims and caprice.

Further, Justice Sangeeta Vishen observed that parties concerned will be put in an embarrassing position cannot be a ground to dispense with the inquiry.

6. No Relaxation In Requirements Stipulated In Recruitment Advertisement Unless Power Is Specifically Reserved: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: PARULBEN NATWARLAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

"When a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is reserved," the Gujarat High Court held recently.

The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a Special Civil Application filed by one Parulben Patel, seeking appointment to the post of Live-Stock Inspector (Class III), and that the requirement for having 10th class certificate in English be relaxed.

7. Motor Accident Claim | Lack Of Endorsement To Drive Transport Vehicle Not Equivalent To Lack Of Valid Driving License: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Versus MUKESHBHAI BHIMSINGBHAI RAJPUT & 4 other(s)

The Gujarat High Court has recently held it to be a well-settled principle of law that "merely in absence of endorsement to drive the transport vehicle in the license does not amount to lead to the interpretation that the driver is not holding valid and effective driving license."

Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed this in connection with a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act ('MV Act') wherein the Appellant-Insurance Company was aggrieved with the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded compensation worth INR 1,55,000 with 9% interest pa to the claimants (driver) and owner jointly and severally.

8. No Appointment For Visually Impaired Candidate If Such Vacancy Is Not Requisitioned In The Advertisement: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: SOLANKI VIPULKUMAR VIRABHAI Versus INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SECTION (IBPS)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 55

"The provisions of the 2016 (Rights of Person with Disability) Act do not envisage a situation to give appointment to a person in absence of any vacancy in the category," the Gujarat High Court has held.

Justice Biren Vaishnav observed so while hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the Petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, was aggrieved by non-appointment to the Saurashtra Gramin Bank, for the reason that no vacancy for visually impaired (VI) category was requisitioned.

Case Title: DINESH SHARAN THAKUR Versus DR. M K SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that merely appointing more experienced or senior candidates to an administrative post cannot be said to be stigmatic to the predecessor.

In saying so, the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav has dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner, former HOD (Anesthesia) at a medical college, challenging his removal and appointment of rather senior candidate.

Case Title: GUJARAT RAJYA HOTEL FEDERATION & 9 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

"It is cardinal rule of interpretation, that if a statute explicitly mentions a particular process or method, the same has to be stringently and mandatorily followed, and the Courts cannot interpret the same in any other manner when the words of the statue are precise and unambiguous", the Gujarat High Court has observed.

The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has made this observation in a writ petition seeking to quash the notifications which reduced the cash value of the total wage of hotel workers from 33.3% to 19% vide a 15.12.2001 notification.

11. Can't Permit Correction Of Purported Mistake In Appointment At Belated Stage: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: KIRITKUMAR RAVJIBHAI SHARMA Versus PRINCIPAL/TRUSTEE SARASWATI KADAVNI MANDAL

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purported mistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher, cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited a lapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, to set aside the State's order terminating his services.

Justice Biren Vaishnav held,

"taking a stand four and half years after his appointment was certainly a case correcting a mistake belatedly...even if it is a mistake it was not open for the authorities to so rectify it after four and half years of the petitioner having been appointed to the post."

12. Annexures, Documents Necessary Components of Plaint; Must Be Supplied In Serving Summons Under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1): Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. RMC Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.

"…it is expressly provided that defendant shall be served with the plaint and the annexures of the plaint, therefore it necessary implies that all the documents which are part of the plaint as annexures are required to be supplied to the defendant while serving the summons", the Gujarat High Court has affirmed yesterday.

The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Samir J. Dave upheld this in connection with a Special Civil Application challenging the rejection of the Applicant's leave to defend on grounds of delay.