Gujarat High Court
SCA/33/1990 of MADHUBALA NATWARLAL BHATT Vs DY. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS on 23 October 1997
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 33 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 33 of 1990
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
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 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- MADHUBALA NATWARLAL BHATT
Versus
DY. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR NJ MAJMUDAR for Petitioner Smt. Siddhi Talati for Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 23/10/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
After the matter was ordered to stand over to 21.11.1997, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and made statement before the Court that his client has now instructed him that she is no more interested to continue with the special civil application. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition does not survive any more and the same is disposed of as not pressed. Rule is