Gujarat High Court
SCA/1022/1985 of RAMNIKLAL P RAVAL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 28 November 2001
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1022 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1022 of 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMNIKLAL P RAVAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
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. Special Civil Application No. 1022 of 1985 MR YN OZA for Petitioner No. 1 MR IS SUPEHIA for Petitioner No. 1 M/S MG DOSHIT & CO for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
Date of decision: 28/11/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 22-2-1985
suspending the petitioner from the post of Mamlatdar on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a corruption case.
2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed pointing out that the petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap case arranged by Anti-Corruption Bureau and ACB submitted report dated 12-11-1984 to the effect that the petitioner was involved in a serious case of corruption for which he may be prosecuted.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings, it appears that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order of suspension. A prima-facie case of corruption was made out against the petitioner as he was involved in a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 28-2-1985 /5-4-1985 suspending the order of suspension deserves to be vacated as the petition itself deserves to be dismissed.
4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The ad-interim relief dated 28-2-1985 /5-4-1985 is hereby vacated.
�����(M.S. Shah,J)
zgs/-