STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GITABEN MAGANBHAI DHOLKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per order passed by my brother Justice S.D. Dave on 5.3.2002, the Court has issued rule, which was made returnable on 28.3.2002 and granted interim relief as prayed for by granting prayer clause Para 13-E and the petitioner-State was directed to deposit cost of Rs. 10,000/- in each case on or before 5.4.2002. Mr. Bukhari, learned AGP, appearing for the petitioners has produced the letter for my perusal to show that the office of the Government Pleader has, as per direction given in the order, in each matter deposited Rs. 10,000/- by way of cheque and he has also produced receipt of the Nazir Department of the High Court dated 10.4.2002.

(2.) During hearing Mr. Bukhari, learned AGP appearing for the petitioner-State, has taken me through the orders as well as the Applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner-State before the Appellate Court and submitted that it is true that when the petitioners-defendants have challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court, there is a long delay and accordingly Applications for condonation of delay were submitted by explaining the cause for delay and further that, as according to him, even after the decree was passed, file is required to be processed from one department to another and ultimately the decision was taken to challenge the decree by preferring Appeal and according to him the Appellate Court ought to have while condoning the delay imposed cost for such delay and the Court ought to have examined the merits of the challenge in Appeals. He accordingly, submitted that as per the order passed by this Court on 5.3.2002, the petitioners have deposited with this Court a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- in each matter and while disposing of these Revision Applications, the same may be paid to the respective respondents by way of costs and the opportunity be given to the petitioners-defendants for hearing of the Appeals on merits and the Appellate Court may examine the decree under challenge on merits.

(3.) As found from the judgments of the trial Court, the respondent plaintiffs have filed Suits for seeking declaration and permanent injunction and after hearing the said Suits and considering the evidence, the learned trial Judge has held that the plaintiffs have proved that the plaintiffs are in continuous service and are entitled to the status of post of cook and the plaintiffs are entitled to hold that post according to law. However, the learned trial Judge has held that the order passed by the Deputy Director, Bharatiya Tabibi Homeopathy System dated 27.10.1989 was legal. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suits partly in favour of the plaintiffs.