Gujarat High Court
SCA/2217/1991 of P P JETHVA Vs STATE OF GUJARAT NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH on 15 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2217 of 1991 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5899 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2217 of 1991
with
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5899 of 1987
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES
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 Civil Judge? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- P P JETHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
Mr.Darshan Shah for MR YN OZA for Petitioner MR RJ OZA for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE RAVI R. TRIPATHI
Date of decision: 15/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Mr.Darshan Shah for Mr.Y.N. Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner states that charge sheet which was issued to the petitioner has already been withdrawn by the department. Hence the petition does not which was issued to the petitioner has already been withdrawn by the department. Hence the petition does not survive. Mr.Shah, therefore, seeks to withdraw the petition. 2. Permitted to withdraw. The petition stands petition. 2. Permitted to withdraw. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No order as to costs.
15th December 2000��(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.)
karim*