Gujarat High Court
SCA/1083/1991 of JAYVANTSINGH JADEJA Vs JT REGISTRAR on 24 October 1997
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1083 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 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 1083 of 1991
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
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? -------------------------------------------------------------- JAYVANTSINGH JADEJAVersus JT REGISTRAR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: None present for Petitioners MS SIDDHI TALATI for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 24/10/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Challenge has been made by the petitioners who were at the relevant time Chairman and Director of Bhavnagar Amreli Regional Telibiya Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. respectively, to the order of the respondent-Government under which a custodian was appointed of the said society. 2. This order has been passed on 13th February,
1991. The operation of this order has also been stayed by this Court. If the matter is taken from any aspect i.e. the custodian has not taken the charge of the society and the petitioners were continued, still there would have been the subsequent election of the society and now nothing survives in this special civil application. The absence of the counsel for the petitioners also goes to show that nothing now survives in this special civil application.
3. In the result, this special civil application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this Court stands vacated. No order as to costs.
**********
zgs/-