Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
KHORABA JAGDISH DHANJIBHAI - Appellant
Versus
THE GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15470 of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2021
onstitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - It is case of petitioner that as per policy of respondent, if any person wants an industrial land then person has to make an online application before GIDC and GIDC does scrutiny of application and after scrutiny and reviewing application, GIDC may allow or reject industrial plot application - It is case of petitioner that one Services Private Limited Company was found adopting mala fide practice whereby company had misrepresented itself as an authorized agent of respondent corporation and further advertised that they are authorized person in respondent corporation and if anybody wants a land in respondent corporation, they can contact the said company - Such mala fide practice came to knowledge of Industrial Association and President of Industrial Association made a representation to Regional Manager, GIDC, who in turn forwarded same to head office pointing out mala fide practice - After reviewing the representation, head office of respondent corporation directed Regional office to publish a public notice in daily newspaper and such public notice was published clarifying that respondent Corporation has not appointed any consultant or agent on its behalf - Whether in disciplinary inquiry or in criminal court.
Finding of the court : Respondent was an employee in appellant Bank - On basis of certain alleged misconduct on the part of respondent, he was placed under suspension by order by competent authority in terms of Regulation of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 - Said order of suspension was challenged - High Court took view that order of suspension did not mention whether any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending against respondent or any criminal case was under investigation, inquiry or trial and hence the order was not maintainable - Suspension was quashed - Bank has come up in appeal - In court opinion, law does not require that suspension order must on its face disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending or that any criminal offence was under investigation, inquiry or trial - It would be sufficient if competent authority recorded in its proceedings that the conditions mentioned in Regulation were in existence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the respondent- Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
b. Be pleased to quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 in M/INQUIRY/F.M./98/386 passed by the Respondent Corporation at Annexure-A.
bb. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 04.01.2021 issued by respondent.
c. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 in M/INQUIRY/F.M/98/386 passed by the Respondent Corporation at Annexure-A.
CC. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of charge-sheet dated 4.01.2021 and all proceedings originating thereof.
d. Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; e. to provide for the cost of this petition.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that:
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that as per the policy of the respondent no.1, if any person wants an industrial land then the person has to make an online application before GIDC and GIDC does scrutiny of the application and after scrutiny and reviewing the application, GIDC may allow or reject the industrial plot application. It is the case of the petitioner that one Egniol Services Private Limited Company was found adopting mala fide practise whereby the company had misrepresented itself as an authorised agent of the respondent corporation and further advertised that they are the authorised person in the respondent corporation and if anybody wants a land in the respondent corporation, they can contact the said company. Such mala fide practice came to the knowledge of Sanand Industrial Association and therefore, President of Sanand Industrial Association made a representation to the Regional Manager, GIDC, Sanand who in turn forwarded the same to the head office pointing out the mala fide practice.
3.3 After reviewing the representation, the head office of the respondent corporation directed the Regional office to publish a public notice in the daily newspaper and such public notice was published on 19.08.2020 clarifying that the respondent Corporation has not appointed any consultant or agent on its behalf.
3.4 On 26.08.2020, the Allotment Committee verified all the applications preferred by the interested persons and after reviewing it came to the notice of the Allotment Committee that most of the project reports were same.
3.5 The respondent corporation therefore, on 19.9.2020 directed and authorized the Regional Manager to initiate a criminal complaint for such illegal action being conducted by the consultants relying on the representation made by the Sanand Industrial Association and other documentary evidences.
3.6 The respondent corporation also called the applicants who applied for the land below the area of 3000 sq mtrs on 8.10.2020 for presentation.
3.7 It is the case of the petitioner that the screening was held on or around 28.6.2020 and at which time, the petitioner was on leave for the period between 18.6.2020 to 1.9.2020 as he was under treatment for covid virus and therefore, the petitioner had no role or involvement in any illegal practice.
3.8 On 30.9.2020, the respondent Corporation recorded the statement of one Mr. Vishal Brahmbhatt who was the Managing Director of M/s. Egnisol Services Pvt. Ltd.
3.9 Respondent Corporation passed the impugned order of suspension dated 7.10.2020
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
