Gujarat High Court
SCA/6933/1990 of BABAJI TELAJI THAKORE Vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, PATAN on 11 September 1995
Decision: 11th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6933 of 1990 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to
���Date of Decision: 11th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6933 of 1990
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment? No
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? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Jivanlal M. Patel, Advocate, for the PetitionerShri K.C. Shah, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2Shri Harin P. Raval, Advocate, for Respondent No.3----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 11th September 1995)
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) at Sidhpur asthe Election Tribunal on 23rd June 1989 below the application atEx. 25 in Election Petition No. 71 of 1989 is under challengein this petition under Art.. 227 of the Constitution of India.By his impugned order, the Election Tribunal rejected thepetitioner's election petition on the ground that it furnishedno cause of action.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. It may be sufficient to note that the petitioner challenged the uncontested election of respondentNo.3 as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Mudana on theground that the petitioner's nomination was wrongfully withdrawnat the instance of someone else. I am told at the Bar thatfresh elections to the concerned panchayat have been held andthe new Sarpanch has been elected. In that view of the matter,no useful purpose will be served by examining the merits of thispetition. It can be said to have become infructuous by passageof time. It deserves to be disposed of accordingly.
3. In the result, this petition fails on account of itshaving become infructuous by passage of time. It is thereforerejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as tocosts.
--------