Gujarat High Court
MCACP/1724/1993 of NALIN V PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 14 November 1995
OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1724 OF 1993. Date of decision:14.11.1995. For approval and signature The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Soni and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R.Jain Mr. Prashant G. Desai, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Champenari, A.G.P. for respondents.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1724 OF 1993.
Date of decision:14.11.1995.
For approval and signature
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Soni
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.R.Jain
Mr. Prashant G. Desai, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Champenari, A.G.P. for respondents.
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 judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
��Coram: S.M.Soni & R.R.Jain, JJ.
��----------------------------
��November 14, 1995.
Oral judgment (Per Soni, J.)
Petitioner has filed this application for necessary action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the order of this Court (Coram: M.S.Parikh, J>) dated August 25, 1993.
On issuance of rule, on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, one Srinivas Katikithala, Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, has filed affidavit in reply. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated that L.P.A. is filed and is pending admission hearing. In view of these facts which are not controverted by affidavit in rejoinder, the impugned order of which the breach is alleged, cannot be said to be a final one and it can be said that disobedience of the order which is appealed against, cannot be said to be a wilful one.
In view of these facts, case of the petitioner does not fall within clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of the Courts Act.
In view of these facts, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.