Gujarat High Court
SCA/1916/1999 of HARIJAN GOVINDBHAI MAVJIBHAI BATHWAR THROUGH BROTHER Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 30 November 1999
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1916 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 1916 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- HARIJAN GOVINDBHAI MAVJIBHAI BATHWAR THROUGH BROTHERVersus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BM MANGUKIYA for Petitioner MR HH PATEL, AGP, for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 30/11/1999
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. The petitioner is a detenue who was detained by an order of District Magistrate dated 4th March 1999 in exercise of powers u/s 3[1] of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. He has approached this Court with a petition challenging the grounds of detention on various counts.
2. When the matter was called out, Mr. Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondents states upon instructions and after perusing the file that the order of detention impugned in this petition came to be revoked by the State Government on 20th April 1999.
3. In view of above development, this petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed therefor. Rule is discharged. No costs.
����[ A.L.DAVE, J. ]
parmar*