PATEL RAJESHKUMAR MATHURBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Special Civil Application No. 8060 of 1994 has been decided by the Court on 2 6/09/1995. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the could not appear in the case when the same was called for hearing as he filed a leave note on 21-9-1995 for two days (25-9-1995 and 26-9-1995). The ground of absence which has been given by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not sufficient. The petitioners have not produced any proof whatsoever to show that the Counsel has filed a leave note on 21-9-1995. Miscellaneous Civil Application is not supported by any affidavit. The Counsel for the petitioners has not filed his own affidavit or affidavit of any of the petitioners. Generally, this Court notifies the leave of the Advocates who file the leave notes. The learned Counsel for the petitioners did not file on record the notification of the Court where his leave note has been accepted for 25-9-1995 and 26-9-1995. I have gone through the contents of the Misc. Civil Application. In the application, it is not the case of the petitioners that on 26-9-1995 their Counsel has not come to the Court. The Counsel for the petitioners has not filed his affidavit to show that on 25-9-1995 and 26-9-1995 he has not come to the Court. From the averments which have been made in sub-paragraph (j) of paragraph (7) it can be seen that it is only stated that as leave note has been filed, the Advocate for the petitioners could not remain present. These averments do not give out that the Counsel for the petitioners has not come to the Court on 26-9-1995.

(2.) The list of the leave notes are notified by the Court. As stated earlier, no list has been produced on the record by the petitioners in support of the averments made in the application. The list of the leave notes contains notes which read as under : "Leave granted to the following Advocates subject to the provisions of Rule 132(ii) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. As provided in the Rules, leave note does not apply to the following cases :- (i) Criminal Cases; (ii) Special Civil Application; (iii) Matters specially fixed for hearing or expedited by the order of the Court; and (iv) Matters on daily Board."

(3.) A bare perusal of the list of leave notes notified by this Court makes it clear that the same does not apply to the Criminal cases, Special Civil Application, matters specially fixed for hearing or expedited by the order of the Court and matters on the daily Board. Even if, it is accepted that the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted leave note, then too, it is of no help to the petitioners because it does not apply to the Special Civil Application. Secondly, the leave note also does not apply to the matters which are on daily Board. It is not in dispute that the case of petitioners which has been decided on 26-9-1995 is a Special Civil Application and this was listed on the daily Board on the said date. In view of the facts of this case and the provisions as contained in Rule 132 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, the grievance of the petitioners which has been made on the ground that his Counsel had filed leave note has no merit. The next ground which has been taken is that the respondents-authorities have not filed reply in this Special Civil Application and has not controverted any of the averments made by the petitioners. It is true that the respondents have not filed the reply to the Special Civil Application No. 8060 of 1994. In the cognate matter Special Civil Application No. 8172 of 1994 the respondents thereof have filed reply to the Special Civil Application. In paragraph (12) of the Special Civil Application No. 8172 of 1994 it has been stated that other similarly situated persons have filed Special Civil Application No. 8060 of 1994 before this Honourable Court and this Honourable Court has issued notice returnable on 6/07/1994 and also granted ad interim relief. On 31/03/1995 in Special Civil Application No. 8172 of 1994 this Court passed the order which reads as under :