Gujarat High Court
MCACP/525/1991 of RAMESHBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL Vs PRINCIPAL, S L PRAGATI VIDYALAYA on 12 February 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLN.(CONTEMPT PETITION) No 525 of 1991 in MISC. CIVIL APPLN.(CONTEMPT PETITION)No 962 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLN.(CONTEMPT PETITION) No 525 of 1991
in
MISC. CIVIL APPLN.(CONTEMPT PETITION)No 962 of 1990
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- RAMESHBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL
Versus
PRINCIPAL, S L PRAGATI VIDYALAYA
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR MP PRAJAPATI for Petitioners
MR RAJESH B DESAI for Respondent No. 1
MR BA VAISHNAV for Respondent No. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and �� MwR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
Date of decision: 12/02/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
It is stated at the bar that applicant No.1 has migrated to U.S.A. Further, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out as to what amount is paid to him. It is also mentioned that the amount is paid subject to verification and hence it cannot be said that it is a fit case to initiate action against the respondents.
So far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, he has addressed a letter to the respondent school authorities, viz: Managing Trustee/Acharya, S.L. Pragati Vidyalaya, Ranip, Ahmedabad stating that he has received the entire wages which were outstanding and he has no dispute about the calculations and he has no objection if the contempt application is withdrawn by the applicants.
It is also stated on behalf of the learned advocate for the respondent School that the Government has directed the school authorities to close the school and the school is closed now. Copy of the order dated 23.1.1992 in this regard passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar is produced before us at Annexure II to the affidavit filed on behalf of the opponent school.
In view of what is recorded above, it can be stated that it is not a fit case to proceed further with the matter.
Rule is discharged.
csm./���---------------����