Gujarat High Court High Court

Vishol vs Aa on 23 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Vishol vs Aa on 23 February, 2011
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9348/1998	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9348 of 1998
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
 
 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To
			be referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

 
================================================
 

VISHOL
SAK BHAJI ANE FAL FARADI UGADNARAONI KHARID   Petitioner
 

Versus
 

AA
PATEL & 3 - Respondents
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
NOTICE
SERVED for Petitioner: 
MR. RASHESH RINDANI, LD. AGP for
Respondent: 1
 

DS
AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondents :  2, 4, 
MR. PRAVIN P. PANCHAL
for MR PRAKASH K JANI for Respondent:
3, 
========================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
JUDGMENT

The
noting on the board indicate that the petitioner was served with a
notice for making arrangement for representing them as learned
advocate had been elevated to the Bench of this Court. The writ was
issued on 7/12/2006 and parties are served. The petitioner has not
taken any action for making any arrangements for representing them.
Learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani submits that looking to the prayers
made in this petition, now the petition would have become
infructuous as it was a prayer for including name in the voters
list.

In
view of this facts & circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the matter is required to be disposed of for want of
prosecution as well as the same being now not surviving. Hence the
matter is disposed of for want of prosecution and on account it has
become infructuous. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]

/vgn

   

Top