Gujarat High Court
SCA/2628/1999 of SATTARBHAI RAHIMBHAI SAIYAD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 14 December 1999
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2628 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2628 of 1999
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
============================================================ 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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- SATTARBHAI RAHIMBHAI SAIYADVersus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner MR HH PATEL, AGP, for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date of decision: 14/12/1999
ORAL JUDGEMENT
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. Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present when the matter is called out. Mr.H.H.Patel, learned AGP appearing for the State states that although the order was passed on 9th March 1999, the petitioner was detained to the custody on 16th March
1999. However, upon consideration of the recommendations of the Advisory Board, the order has been revoked by the Government on 26th April 1999.
2. The matter has, therefore, become infructuous. The same is dismissed, as having become infructuous. Rule discharged. No costs.
���[A.L.DAVE, J. ]
parmar*