Gujarat High Court
SCA/537/1983 of PARUL TRADING CORPORATION Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 5 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 537 of 1983 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 537 of 1983
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO 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? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PARUL TRADING CORPORATION
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR JASHBHAI P PATEL for Petitioner (ABSENT) MR LR PUJARI, AGP, for Respondent No. 1, 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
and
MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH
Date of decision: 05/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI)
When this petition is called out for hearing no one appears for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the petition has become infructuous because Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been repealed by Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of Section 68(2)(hh) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that challenge will not now survive in view of the repeal of the Act. It is also pointed out that the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules have also been repealed and at present the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules are in force and therefore the challenge against the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Gujarat Seventh Amendment) Rules, 1980, will not survive. In this view of the matter, Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
����***
(mohd)