NAVSARJAN TRUST Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. M.G. Nagarkar waives service of rule. At the request of the learned advocates, this matter is taken for final hearing.

(2.) This is a glaring example where Public Corporation despite the service is affected much before has not bothered to file reply. In this session, we have come across several cases where the Government/ the Corporation on account of delay, in almost all matters is required to file applications for condonation of delay. The same requires issuance of rule in delay applications. We are constrained to say that in number of cases where there is nothing on the merits yet the appeals have been preferred. Even the learned G.P./A.G.P. arguing the appeals in many cases, could not satisfactorily point out to the Court that the trial court has committed any error and therefore without issuance of notice to the land losers, the matters have been rejected. After taking into consideration merits, in some cases where it was pointed out that interference is called for, the court has issued notice in applications for condonation of delay. As said earlier that in several cases even after the service, reply is not filed, matters are required to be rotated. Before filing the appeals, grounds are taken that the delay is likely to take place. After issuance of process, for a long time reply is not filed and prayer for time is usually made on several occasions in each matter. These are the reasons causing delay in the disposal.

(3.) In the instant case, the notice was issued on 15.12.99 which was made returnable on 11.1.2000. Ad-interim stay of operation and implementation of the demand notice at Annexure `E' to the petition was granted. It seems that thereafter on 11.1.2000, the matter was adjourned as the request was made. On 21.2.2000 the learned advocate for the respondent requested for time and the time was granted. Again on 28.2.2000, as the petitioner's advocate consented for time, by consent, Court adjourned the matter. Again on 8.3.2000, Mr.Nagarkar requested for time and the matter was adjourned to 15.3.2000. When the matter was called out on 19.4.2000, the learned advocate could not remain present and hence the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner was required to file an application and the Court granted the same on 20.7.01. That is how the matter is restored. Even thereafter, the Corporation-respondent herein has not bothered to file any reply.