Gujarat High Court
LPA/315/1985 of S R KALAY Vs . on 22 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 315 of 1985 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 1355 of 1981 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 315 of 1985
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 1355 of 1981
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- S R KALAYVersus UNION OF INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MR VYAS for Appellant MR JC SHETH for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 22/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT [ PER : B.C. PATEL, J ] The appellant failing before learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application, has approached this Court by making a grievance that though no order was challenged, on behalf of Railways a statement was made that the order will be cancelled shortly and it may be treated as cancelled and in view of the statement, petition was disposed of having become infructuous.
In the beginning of this appeal, it is pointed out that the petitioner questioned seniority list and, therefore, a prayer was made that the respondents be restrained from implementing seniority list at Annex.A. Without going into the merits of the case, as the appellant has already retired, Mr. Sheth appearing for the respondents as well as learned advocate for the appellant submitted that if respondents are directed to consider the representation which has already been made and the petition may also be considered as representation and respondents if is directed to dispose of the same within a period of 4 months, the ends of justice would be met with.
Accordingly, we direct respondents concerned to treat this petition as representation as well as representation which had already been made and to decide the same within a period of 4 weeks from receipt of the writ. After considering representation, if authority decides against the petitioner, it would be open for him to challenge the same. Authority shall comply with the directions as above forth with.
In view of what is stated herein above, appeal stands allowed accordingly. Order passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside in view of directions given as above. Spl.C.A. stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
���000000
*rawal