Gujarat High Court
SCA/8379/1998 of PARBHUBHAI DURLABHBHAI PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 16 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8379 of 1998 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 8379 of 1998
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- PARBHUBHAI DURLABHBHAI PATELVersus STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PM BHATT for Petitioner MR DP JOSHI AGP for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH Date of decision: 16/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
��Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr.
D.P.Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The only relief to which the petitioner lay claim is that his application annexure "A" under section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has not been so far decided and is pending with the State Government for consideration. The fact is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's application Annexure "A" under section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by 31st March, 1999. Rule is made absolute only to the above extent with no order as to cost.
16.12.1998. ���(M.S.Parikh,J.)
Vyas