Gujarat HC Deprecates State Govt For 276-Day Delay In Filing Appeal, Stopping Statutory Local Authorities From Implementing Writ Orders

The Gujarat High Court has deprecated the conduct of the State government for filing an appeal against a writ order with a delay of 276 days, observing that when it is added as a party to the proceedings along with the local authorities, then it cannot watch the proceedings from the fence by neither filing any affidavits nor making any submissions on its stand. 

The High Court said that in case the State government chooses not to contest 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.

In the present case the single judge had granted relief to certain persons taking note of the District Development Officer's statement that these individuals would be entitled to the benefits under a 2015 Government Resolution. The court noted that 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". It was noted that the Director of the District Rural Development Agency had already forwarded a proposal to the State for approval of the benefits, though the Director, Accounts and Treasury Department, had raised an objection with regard to the approval not being granted by the State.

A division bench of Justice A S Supehia and Justice Nisha M Thakore in its order thereafter said:

"Thus, without contesting the writ petition, when the appellants endeavored to implement the directions issued by this Court, the Additional Commissioner directed the appellants to file a Letters Patent Appeal. Thus, the appeal has been filed after delay of 276 days. 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 bench noticed that in various 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 additional government pleader argued 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

The bench however said:

“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 bench observed that the main Department of the State Government maintains silence and allows the statutory local authorities to contest the writ petition, but 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.

The Bench further stated, “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 issued a direction that the Registry must convey this order to the Heads of all State Departments. Additionally, the Government Pleader was asked to ensure that henceforth the State and its subordinate statutory bodies adopt a consistent and coordinated legal stand.

With the Assistant Government Pleader submitting that the State Government would issue appropriate orders to grant the benefits to the original writ petitioners, the counsel for the appellants did not press the civil application or the main appeal.

The matter was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Click Here To Read Judgement 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 58