Gujarat High Court
SCA/5871/1996 of SHANTABEN WD/O PURSHOTTAMDAS CHHAGANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 3 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5871 of 1996 to SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 5875 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5871 of 1996
to
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 5875 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
============================================================
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?
Nos.1 to 5 - No.
-------------------------------------------------------------- SHANTABEN WD/O PURSHOTTAMDAS CHHAGANLAL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR RS SANJANWALA for Petitioners
Mr.T.H.Sompura, AGP. for Respondent No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No. 2
MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent No. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
Date of decision: 03/12/96
ORAL COMMON JUDGEMENT
Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
Learned Advocate Mr.Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioners agrees that the matters at issue in these petitions have been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Manilal Gordhandas & Ors. reported in Judgment Today (1996)8 S.C.646 against the petitioners. However, he submits that the respondents therein have preferred an application for review before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they have also made an application in other pending cases for right of hearing. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with a liberty to revive the same in the event any of the matters at issue in these petitions is decided in favour of the petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the review application pending before it or any other similar matter which is pending before it.
Leave is granted with a liberty to revive the petitions as aforesaid. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged in each of the petitions.Interim relief, if any, is vacated.
Dated:3-12-96.
��� (Miss R.M.Doshit,J)