Gujarat High Court
SCA/7315/1992 of JAYKUMAR G DOSHI Vs UNDER SECRETARY on 1 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7315 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be
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 7315 of 1992
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES 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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- JAYKUMAR G DOSHIVersus UNDER SECRETARY -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR YN OZA for Petitioner Mr.K.P. Raval, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI
Date of decision: 01/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court against the order of suspension dated 8.9.1992, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition. However, it seems that with the passage of time, the petitioner has lost interest in the petition. Therefore, learned advocate does not have any instructions from the petitioner.
2. The petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
1st December 2000��(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.)
karim*