Gujarat High Court
SCA/5913/2001 of AMRATLAL D MEHTA & COMPANY Vs GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5913 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5913 of 2001
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
============================================================
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.
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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
-------------------------------------------------------------- AMRATLAL D MEHTA & COMPANYVersus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 5913 of 2001 MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MEHUL S SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MD PANDYA for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1,2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date of decision: 28/12/2004
ORAL JUDGEMENT
#. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner for a period of two years.
#. During the pendency of this petition, two years have already elapsed and the period of blacklisting is already over. Under the circumstances, the petition has become academic. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the present petition is being disposed of as it has become infructuous by afflux of time. It goes without saying that as the period of blacklisting is already over, there is no difficulty in the way of the petitioner responding to any invitation of tender.
Rule is discharged. No costs.
����(M.R.Shah,J)
(pathan)