Gujarat High Court
SCA/8686/1992 of MAHAVIRSINH J JADEJA Vs VADHVAN MUNICIPALITY on 22 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8686 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8686 of 1992
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================
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 : 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- MAHAVIRSINH J JADEJAVersus VADHVAN MUNICIPALITY
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MRS SANGEETA N PAHWA for Petitioner
MR DD VYAS for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
Date of decision: 22/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
When this petition is called out, the learned Counsel for the Municipality states that the petitioner has been continuing as a Librarian since 1992 and at present the removal of the petitioner is not in contemplation and therefore this petition is misconceived. In view of the fact that the removal of the petitioner is not in contemplation, the apprehension of the petitioner seems to be ill-founded. This petition is therefore rejected at this stage. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.
----
*/Mohandas