SCA/2034/1995 of KANTILAL H PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT THRU- on 15 December 1995

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

— 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

KANTILAL H PATEL

vs

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

Appearence: MR RJ OZA for Petitioner

MR DA BAMBHANIA for Respondent No. 1 & 2.

Coram : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER

ORAL JUDGEMENT Rule. Mr.Bambhania, learned Additional Government Pleaderappears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this matter is taken upfor final hearing to day.

This petition is filed by the petitioner for a declarationthat the inquiry initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge-sheet dt.. January 27, 1992 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and suffers from the vice of malafide and is null andvoid. A prayer is made to quash and set aside the inquiry as alsocharge-sheet. In my opinion, when inquiry is pending no prayer forquashing inquiry can be made. But prima facie, submission of Mr.Oza, learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded that theallegations relate to the period between 1984 to 1986. Thecharge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as early as in January1992. He, therefore, prays that if the court is not inclined toquash and set aside the inquiry proceedings, direction may beissued to the respondent authorities to expedite the inquiry and tocomplete it within a reasonable period.

Pursuant to the notice issued by this court, therespondent appeared. Mr.Bambhania states that the Inquiry Officeris already appointed and the inquiry will be completed as earlyas possible. He prays that the court may grant reasonable time ofabout four months so as to enable the authorities to finalise theinquiry. In my opinion, the request is reasonable. In the factsand circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondentauthorities will expedite the inquiry and finalise asexpeditiously as possible but before April 30, 1996. Rule is madeabsolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.