Gujarat High Court
SCA/6560/1988 of KESHUBHAI LAKHMANBHAI Vs JETPUR MUNICIPALITY on 11 December 2002
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6560 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6560 of 1988
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- KESHUBHAI LAKHMANBHAI
Versus JETPUR MUNICIPALITY -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
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. Special Civil Application No. 6560 of 1988 MR GM JOSHI for Petitioner No. 1 MR JR NANAVATI for Respondent No. 1 MR AR THACKER for Respondent No. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
Date of decision: 11/12/2002
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Under the interim order passed by this court while admitting this petition on 29.11.1988 the petitioner has already been appointed on the post of Driver-cum-Mechanic and by now he is retired from service.
In that view of the matter, learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner and Mr.Nanavati for the respondent-Municipality were right in submitting that this petition has practically become infructuous. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
����(B.J.Shethna, J.)
*Pvv