Gujarat High Court
SCA/2873/1987 of GOVIND SITARAM Vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE on 30 November 1999
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2873 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2873 of 1987
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA���Sd/-
============================================================ 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 Civil Judge? : NO 1 to 5 No -------------------------------------------------------------- GOVIND SITARAMVersus DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR YN OZA for Petitioner
MR BY MANKAD as instructed by MR SP HASURKAR
for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date of decision: 30/11/1999
ORAL JUDGEMENT
In this petition, it is prayed that the
departmental proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1
be quashed and set aside till the criminal cases pending against the petitioner are finalised. At the initial stage, while admitting the petition, the interim relief as prayed for was not granted and the ad-interim relief granted earlier was vacated.
2. Today, when the matter is called out for final hearing, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents states that the petitioner is convicted in Criminal Case No.17 of 1988 and by the order dated 4.10.1990, punished with rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.500/-. Upon such conviction, the petitioner is also dismissed from his service under the respondents by the order dated 30.3.1991. The said order is being placed on record.
3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the facts of conviction and dismissal of the petitioner from service as mentioned above. under these circumstances, this petition does not survive and the reliefs as prayed cannot be granted. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
������Sd/- (KMG Thilake)
#########