Gujarat High Court
SCA/8494/1997 of HARIJAN CHANDU NANA Vs COLLECTOR OF DAHOD on 16 November 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8494 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8494 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- HARIJAN CHANDU NANA
Versus
COLLECTOR OF DAHOD
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR MUKESH R SHAH for Petitioners
MR MUKESH PATEL ASSTT. G.P. for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH
Date of decision: 16/11/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Heard. It clearly appears that the Government has already taken a decision with regard to the formation of Taluka in question. However, it has been submitted that the petitioners would make representation before the respondents setting out the facts concerning the earlier notification. Hence it is directed that the petitioners will make such representation within the period of one week from today. As and when such representation is made by the petitioners, same shall be considered and decided by the respondents in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Subject to this, this petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.
16.11.1998. ���(M.S.Parikh,J.)
Vyas