TINABHAI BHIKHABHAI Vs. JT SECRETARY (APPEALS) REVENUE DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Special Civil Applications are filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 as well as 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under the Bombay Land Revenue Code for the prayer inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued for quashing and setting aside the order passed by Respondent No.1 -Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat dated 10.10.2005 at Annexure -A and also other prayers for direction of the prosecution of the panch.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarized are that the petitioners as a Secretary of Respondent No.4 Sahakari Mandali failed to deposit the amount of recovery or the receipts and is said to have made some irregularities resulting in the proceedings under Section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act on the basis of the audit report. It is stated that the amount has not been deposited but it has been deposited in the account of the petitioners and thereafter the custodian had taken charge of Respondent No.4 -Society resulting in the litigation by way of Special Civil Application No.15780 of 2003. However, the said petition was withdrawn and the land of the petitioners was auctioned on 11.4.2003 which is the subject matter of the present petitions challenging the order passed by the authorities below.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri J.T.Trivedi for the petitioners referred to the background of the facts at length and also referred to the order of the High Court (Coram: Jayant Patel,J) dated 21.12.2006. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi has also referred to the details that the auction was held on 14.11.2003 in haste and hurry without following the procedure or without giving sufficient notice as required under law. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi submitted that the recovery certificate is for an amount of Rs.51470/ - and the amount is not clear what amount is outstanding which is to be calculated and the rate of interest has to be seen. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi submitted that the rate of interest would be less for the agriculturist as per the policy for which he referred to the papers and submitted that the interest calculated is much higher contrary to such guidelines or the policy. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi referred to Annexure -B, a public notice dated 21.11.2003 and submitted that the 30 days notice is required for which he referred to Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act as well as Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Rules. He pointedly referred to Rule 66 in support of his submission. Learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court - Vasu P. Shetty v. M/s Hotel Vandana Palace and ors., 2014 AIR(SC) 1947 and submitted that 30 days notice is a mandatory requirement which has not been followed. He again referred to the notice at Annexure -B and submitted that the notice dated 3.10.2003 has been published in 'Saurashtra Samachar' on 10.11.2003 in respect of the auction scheduled on 14.11.2003. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi therefore submitted that it suggests haste and hurry for the auction. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2004 7 SCC 151