Gujarat High Court
SCA/8910/1998 of TARAR KANTILAL HAKHZIBHAI Vs AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION on 12 December 2003
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8910 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8910 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
============================================================
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 judgment?
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- TARAR KANTILAL HAKHZIBHAIVersus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
GIRISH PATEL ASSOC for the Petitioner.
MR RM CHHAYA for Respondent Nos. 1-2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
Date of decision: 12/12/2003
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Mr.Manoj Shrimali, learned Advocate, for Girish Patel Associates, learned Advocate for the petitioner, states that so far as the petitioner, Tarar Kantilal Hakhzibhai, is concerned, The Corporation has already decided to give him fresh appointment for a period of one year, on probation, by order dated 10.12.2003. Since the petitioner is required to withdraw the petition in order to get the said benefit, the learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Resolution dated 10.12.2003, passed by the Corporation, as well as the letter dated 11.12.2003 addressed by the petitioner to the learned Advocate are kept on record.
Liberty to apply in case of difficulty.
The Office may now place Special Civil
Application No.8921 of 1998 separately.
The petitioner can also show a copy of this order before the Corporation so that the Corporation can act on the basis of the Resolution dated 10.12.2003, for giving before the Corporation so that the Corporation can act on the basis of the Resolution dated 10.12.2003, for giving appropriate benefit to the petitioner.
The office may give certified copy to the petitioner without any delay as the petitioner is required to inform the Corporation, within the stipulated time, i.e. on or before 17th December, 2003, about the withdrawal of the petition.
12.12.2003���( P.B. Majmudar, J. )
***
(apj)