SCA/7464/1999 of RAMANBHAI MAKANBHAI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 23 December 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7464 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.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 thereJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO 1 to 5 No JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMANBHAI MAKANBHAIVersus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR KK TRIVEDI for Petitioner MR SP HASURKAR for Respondent No. 1 MR MD PANDYA for Respondent No. 2 MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

Date of decision: 23/12/1999

Rule. Learned Government Solicitor Shri Hasurkar appearing with learned AGP Shri N.D. Gohil waives service of rule for respondent No. 1. Ld. Advocate Shri M.D. Pandya waives service of rule for respondent No. 2 and learned advocate Shri P.G. Desai waives service of rule for respondent No. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the matter is finally heard today.

In the present petition the petitioner has objected to the revised draft development plan of 1996 prepared by respondent No. 2. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 that at present the revised draft development plan is under consideration of the respondent government and if any representation has been made by the petitioner, the said objected to the revised draft development plan of 1996 prepared by respondent No. 2. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 that at present the revised draft development plan is under consideration of the respondent government and if any representation has been made by the petitioner, the said representation shall be duly considered. Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he would like to submit this petition as an objection to the said plan. In the circumstances, learned advocate Shri Hasurkar has submitted that the petition shall be treated as an objection before granting sanction to the plan in question and the said objection shall be duly considered by the respondent government.

In view of the above statement made by learned Government Solicitor Shri Hasurkar, learned advocate Shri Trivedi seeks permission to withdraw this petition. The petition stands disposed of withdrawn. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. Direct service is permitted.

_____

(hn)