P B RAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners have prayed for a declaration that they are eligible to apply for plots of land at Gandhinagar as per the Government Resolution dated 29.6.1988 and subsequent Resolution dated 23rd January 1990 and others passed from time to time. It is further prayed to declare Clause 3 of the Resolution dated 23rd January 1990 extending the benefit of grant of extension of time limit as restricted to Government employees who have been on deputy, long leave etc., as bad in law. It is further prayed to quash and set aside the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the application of the petitioners as time barred.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that they were working in different capacities in Clerical cadre under respondent No.3; that they have submitted applications for allotment of plots in light of the Resolution dated 29.6.1988 and the Resolution dated 23rd January 1990; and their applications have been rejected by the Collector, Gandhinagar as time barred. It is also the contention on behalf of the petitioners relying upon one communication dated 23rd March 1990 by the Chief Police Officer and Director Anti-Corruption Bureau, State of Gujarat, addressed to the Collector, Gandhinagar that as the department had not received the resolution dated 29.6.1988 the applications were not made within the stipulated time limit. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that by subsequent resolution the time limit has been extended, however the same has been restricted to some of the Government employees who were on deputation, long leave etc., and therefore the Government Resolution dated 23rd January 1990 should be quashed and set aside as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the action of the respondent No.2 Collector, Gandhinagar in rejecting the application of the petitioners as time barred should also be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Petition is opposed by Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned AGP appearing for the State. It has been submitted that admittedly the Government Resolution dated 29.6.1988 provided for submitting the applications on or before 31.12.1988 and that all the petitioners had submitted their applications in the month of January 1990, which were not within the stipulated time. Admittedly, the subsequent resolutions extending the time will not be applicable to the petitioners and it will be applicable only to the restricted class of employees who were on deputation, long leave etc., and therefore the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the application of the petitioners as time barred is just and in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 29.6.1988. It is further submitted that there is no prayer in the petition to extend the time limit for making such applications. It is, therefore, requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.