Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SA,CJ,PT
HEMANTBHAI ARVINDBHAI AMIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)
1. The delay of eight days in filing the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while dismissing the writ petition in limine, recording that the writ petition is an abuse of process of law, cost quantified to Rs.50,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority, within the period of four weeks’ from the date of the order.
3. Mr. Priyan Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, would submit that the challenge in the writ petition was to the interlocutory order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) in Revision No.136 of 2024. However, the said revision has now been adjudicated finally and while setting aside the order passed by the Collector dated 08.10.2024, the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration.
4. The submission, thus, is that the ap
The court upheld the imposition of costs for abuse of process due to the petitioner's misrepresentation of facts and failure to challenge relevant prior orders.
The petitioner cannot seek exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings for filing an appeal, as the writ petition was entertained and resulted in a final order, constituting an abuse of process.
The court emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
A petitioner cannot file a petition after accepting costs paid by the respondent without disclosing this fact, and the Trial Court's exercise of discretion in condoning the delay in filing the applic....
Pendency of defective review application does not suspend compliance with court order to deposit exemplary costs within stipulated time, permitting recovery proceedings without show cause; only court....
Pendency of defective review application does not suspend compliance with court order to deposit exemplary costs within stipulated time; only court can extend time, recovery proceedings justified.
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
The court established that a delay of 1482 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal is unreasonable without sufficient cause, highlighting the necessity for timely challenges in legal proceedings.
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
