Gujarat High Court
SCA/4830/1986 of JALAMSINGH SOMAJI PANDAV Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 1 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4830 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 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
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4830 of 1986
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
============================================================
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? -------------------------------------------------------------- JALAMSINGH SOMAJI PANDAVVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR IS SUPEHIA for Petitioner MR BY MANKAD for Respondent No. 1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 01/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The petitioner- Driver Constable of SRP Group:XI has challenged the order of his suspension dated 21.8.1986 at Annex.B to the petition on various grounds and considering the same, this petition was admitted by this Court by issuing Rule. At the time of hearing this petition finally, learned counsel Mr.Supehia, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was suspended because of criminal prosecution launched against him and that was the sole ground for his suspension. He further submitted that as that incident is of June 1986, by now, everything must have been over and, therefore, the petition has impliedly rendered infructuous and the same can be disposed of on this sole ground.
In view of above, petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. However, it is observed that if the prosecution has resulted into acquittal of the petitioner and if necessary orders are not passed by the department because of pendency of this petiton, the department shall pass appropriate orders in consonance with the Rules of the department. Rule is discharged.
No orders as to costs.
���0000000
*rawal