The Gujarat High Court has criticized State Government for filing delayed Appeal in writ proceedings and stopping local department from carrying out court order.

The Court was considering an Application seeking condonation of delay of 276 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

The division bench of Justice A S Supehia and Justice Nisha M Thakore observed," In our considered opinion, this is a fit case for deprecating the practice followed by the State Department. The respondent-State Department has not applied the mind and simply directed the appellants to file an appeal after a huge delay, and that too at a stage, when the appellants thought of complying with the directions issued by this Court. The communication dated 20.02.2025, written by the Additional Commissioner to the Director, is ordered to be taken on record. It is noticed by us that in number of matters where the State Government is arraigned as a party to the writ proceedings along with the local bodies / authorities, the matter is entirely contested by the local statutory bodies / authorities and no contest is made by the State Government i.e. the main Department under which the local bodies fall."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Pradip J Patel while the Respondent was represented Additional Government Pleader Nirali Sarda.

Facts of the Case

The single judge had disposed of the writ petition and it was declared that the Respondents were entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution. There was no contest from the Respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat, which was represented through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department. Without contesting the Writ Petition, when the Appellants endeavored to implement the directions issued by the Court, the Additional Commissioner directed the Appellants to file a Letters Patent Appeal. The Present Appeal was thus filed after delay of 276 day

Counsel for the Appellants submitted that though the Appellants were ready and willing to comply with the directions issued by the Court, however they were instructed by the Additional Commissioner, Rural Development, Gandhinagar, to file an Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge.

Reasoning By Court

The Court deemed the present one to be fit case for depreciation. It disapproved of the submission of the Additional Government Pleader that in such matters administratively, the local bodies are entrusted to contest these matters and the State Department, under which the local bodies fall, can, at the most, guide such local statutory bodies / authorities on an issue.

"We do not endorse such approach of the State Department. The State Department cannot remain a mute spectator in the court proceedings, more particularly, on an issue, which falls within their domain also. The implementing authority would be the local statutory body / authority, which has to seek approval from the State Department under which they fall. It is also noticed by us that after the orders are passed by this Court in the matters where the entire contest has been undertaken on behalf of the local authorities, and ultimately, when it comes to the compliance of such judgments and orders directed by this Court, when the approval is being sought from the State Government, at that stage, the State Government directs to further challenge such orders, without noticing the aspect of delay. The wisdom on the State Department to assail the judgement and order only prevails, when contempt proceedings are filed," the Court observed.

It noted that it has been noticed that though in the main proceedings, the main Department of the State Government maintains silence and allows the statutory local authorities to contest the Writ Petition, at the stage of implementation and the time when the approval is sought by such bodies, an objection is raised by the State Government Department without contesting the writ petition.

"This leads to an anomalous situation between the statutory local authorities and the main State Government Department, which results in multiplicity of litigation resulting into consumption of precious judicial time of this Court.....Thus, when a State Department is arraigned as a party to the proceedings along with the statutory local authorities or the other State Sub-Department functions, the State Department cannot watch the proceedings by sitting on the fence by neither filing any affidavits nor making any submissions clarifying its view / stand on the issue. Ultimately, without approval from the State Department, the statutory local authorities cannot grant the benefits as directed by the Courts. The State Government Department in such cases has to clarify its stand before the concerned Court in the proceedings, in which they are arraigned as party and are represented and they cannot simply shift its burden on the statutory local authorities for contesting an issue. In case the State Department chooses not to context the proceedings, then it cannot refrain the statutory local authorities from implementation of the judgment and orders of the Court by directing them to challenge such orders without involving itself in such proceedings. It is obligatory on the State Department to apprise the Court in the proceedings about the financial implications on such issue, and it cannot take objection at the time of implementation of the directions issued by this Court without contesting the proceedings," the Court observed.

It added that present is one such case which highlights the insouciant approach of the State Department.

"Learned Government Pleader is hereby instructed to bring to the notice to the Heads of all the Departments about the present order so that analogous stand is taken by the local statutory authorities and the State Department and they contests the issue in sync with each other," the Court directed.

The Application was accordingly disposed off.

Cause Title: District Development Officer & Ors. vs. State Of Gujarat & Ors. (2025:GUJHC:18319-DB)

Appearances

Applicant- Advocate Pradip J Patel

Respondent- Additional Government Pleader Nirali Sarda, Advocate Murali N Devnani

Click here to read/ download Order




Gujarat High CourtJustice AS SupehiaJustice Nisha M. Thakore

Sheetal Joon