PRITESHBHAI MANSINGBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges and order dtd. 4/6/2016 whereby the services of the petitioner as a Secretary of a Gram Panchayat Mankan, Taluka: Karjan has been terminated by the Deputy District Development Officer (Panchayat), District Panchayat, Vadodara. At the outset, considering the delay of 8 years in challenging the order, upon being called upon learned advocate Mr. Vyas would submit that the petitioner had never given up his challenge against the impugned order more particularly according to learned advocate, the petitioner had upon the order being passed, had preferred an appeal before the District Development Officer on 17/7/2016 and whereas upon the petitioner being informed that no decision was required to be taken upon the appeal of the petitioner, he had preferred a representation dtd. 26/10/2016, it is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Vyas that the petitioner had constantly approached the District Legal Services Authority and later the High Court Legal Services Authority for appropriate guidance and whereas lastly, the petitioner had written the High Court Legal Services Authority on 15/9/2020 and whereas in response thereto a letter dtd. 2/11/2020 had been received from the High Court Legal Services Committee and whereas since thereafter Covid-19 pandemic had intervened, therefore, the petitioner could not take the issue any further. Learned advocate would submit that since the petitioner was constantly trying to do his best by approaching concerned authorities, the petitioner may not be treated as having waived his challenge to the impugned order.

(3.) On the other hand, the present petition is vehemently contested by learned AGP Mr. Sahil Trivdei on behalf of respondent-State. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi would submit that as such, the present is a classic case where the petitioner after having waived challenge to the impugned order of termination, after many years, for some reason has a rethink and has approached this Court. Learned AGP would submit that in so far as the appeal preferred by the present applicant is concerned, within a period of two months, the petitioner had been informed in the month of September-2016 itself by the DDO that no appeal would be preferable against the impugned order and whereas according to the petitioner, he had preferred a representation against the order of termination in the year October-2016. Learned AGP would submit that while the challenge to the impugned order as far as the respondent authorities are concerned, had ended in the year 2016 since the petitioner never followed up the said representation. On the other hand, the petitioner had approached the District and the Legal Services Authority yet, as could be seen from record, the petitioner had lastly approached the High Court Legal Services Committee in the month of September-2020 and whereas the Legal Services Committee had intimated to the petitioner by their communication dtd. 2/11/2020 to submit relevant documents so as to understand the grievance of the petitioner and provide appropriate legal assistance to the petitioner more particularly if the petitioner was so entitled. Learned AGP would submit that the petitioner does not appear to have responded to communication dtd. 2/11/2020. Learned AGP would submit that thus as far as the respondents are concerned, the petitioner never questioned the impugned decision after the year 2016 and whereas while the petitioner tried to take legal assistance that also seems to be quite intermittent and whereas from December-2020 the petitioner does not appear to have done anything. Learned AGP in this regard would refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others in Civil Appeal No.5027 of 2024, decided on 18/4/2024. Learned AGP would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said decision, has clearly held that the aspect of delay and latches, should be mentioned in the petition itself and whereas a belated contest, should not be entertained by this Court.