Gujarat High Court
CRA/388/1997 of PRADEEPKUMAR AMRUTLAL DEPUTY Vs SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION on 18 November 1997
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 388 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH ============================================================ 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
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 388 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH
============================================================
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? -------------------------------------------------------------- PRADEEPKUMAR AMRUTLAL DEPUTYVersus SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR DD VYAS for Petitioners MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH Date of decision: 18/11/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Service of rule waived by Mr. P.G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Heard. It might be seen from the initial order that the notice was issued specifically for the purpose of settlement and status-quo was granted. Suggestion now is that the petitioners might be permitted to move an appropriate representation to the respondent-Corporation for the said corporation to take decision on such representation. Till then the demolition might not be carried out and status-quo might be maintained in that respect.
2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, following directions are issued :- The petitioners will make representation to the respondent-corporation within a period of three weeks from today. The respondent corporation will give opportunity to the petitioners of being heard on such representation and decide the representation in accordance with law. There shall be status-quo as aforesaid till the representation is decided by the respondent-corporation and communicated to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid directions, this petition is sought to be withdrawn. Permission is accordingly granted. Rule is accordingly discharged. No order as to cost.
* * *
**pvr**