Gujarat High Court
SCA/1135/1992 of GIRISHBHAI K. PARMAR Vs CHAIRMAN, RADHANPUR NAGAR PANCHAYAT on 8 September 1995
Decision: 8th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1135 of 1992 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: 8th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1135 of 1992
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 Bhargav N. Bhatt, Advocate, for the PetitionersShri K.B. Poojara, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1Shri K.C. Shah, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents Nos. 2and 3
---------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 8th 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 disposal of shops of the Nagar Panchayat by publicauction is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution of India. Initially this court grantedad-interim relief but later on, by the order passed by thiscourt on 3rd August 1994, this court vacated such interimrelief. There thus remained no stay against disposal of theshops in question. I am told at the Bar that the shops inquestion have come to be disposed of. In that view of thematter, this petition has become infructuous by passage of time.
It deserves to be disposed of accordingly.
2. 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.
-----------