Gujarat High Court
SCA/4438/1987 of AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 22 November 2002
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4438 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.H.MEHTA ============================================================ 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 4438 of 1987
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.H.MEHTA
============================================================
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 : 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEEVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HL PATEL, for Petitioner RULE SERVED for Respondent Nos. 1,3-5 MR MB GANDHI for Respondent No. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.H.MEHTA
Date of decision: 22/11/2002
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1. Formarly the petitioner was represented by learned advocate Mr.H.L.Patel. During the pendency of this petition, Mr.H.L.Patel expired and, therefore, this Court issued notice dated 30.05.1997 calling upon the petitioner to remain present personally or through an advocate or by someone authorized by law to act for and on his behalf. That notice is duly served upon the petitioner on 09.06.1997. Therefore, no one has made appearance for and on behalf of the petitioner and no one remained present from the side of the petitioner. In view of this, it appears that, the petitioner is now no more interested to prosecute this case further.
2. In view of the above, this petition stands dismissed for default and want of prosecution. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.
[H.H. Mehta,J.]
vijay