RAVATBHAI BHAGWANBHAI KAMALIYA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice, returnable on 10th November, 2016.

(2.) Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 24.08.2016, wherein the respondent No.2 has granted status quo and kept the Revision Application for further hearing on 19.01.2017.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that on the application for joining party filed by respondent No.10 i.e. 3rd party on 19.10.2016, he gave an application dated 24.10.2016 seeking adjournment for enabling him to to give answer/respond to the same. He has also stated that on the said application, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 24.10.2016 adjourning the hearing on 25.11.2016 (at Page 114). It is further submitted that on 25.11.2016, the petitioner submitted detailed application requesting the respondent No.2 to postpone the hearing. It is specifically stated in the said application that due to paucity of time, the petitioner could not reach Ahmedabad before midnight as the distance from the site village Vijapdi is about 300 Kms. from Ahmedabad City. He has stated that despite the aforesaid application, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order rejecting the application for stay, which could not have been passed in such a due haste without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.