Gujarat High Court
SCA/1286/1988 of GAYATRI R NAGAR @ GAYATRI A VAISHNAV Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 18 December 2003
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1286 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to
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 1286 of 1988
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgement? 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- GAYATRI R NAGAR @ GAYATRI A VAISHNAVVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR SHALIN N MEHTA for the Petitioner. Mr.Sood, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1-2 MR SK PATEL for Respondent No. 3 MR PV HATHI for Respondent No. 4 MRS DT SHAH for Respondent No. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
Date of decision: 18/12/2003
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Mr.Shalin Mehta, for the petitioner, states that during the pendency of this petition, by an order dated 16.2.2003, the services of the petitioner have been terminated and, therefore, according to him, this petition has become infructuous. He, therefore, wants to withdraw this petition, reserving to take all the contention in the fresh petition, in case the petitioner chooses to file a fresh petition, challenging the order of termination. Permission as prayed for is granted. Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Interim relief shall stand vacated. No costs.
18th December, 2003��( P.B. Majmudar, J. )
***
(apj)