Gujarat High Court High Court

Baloch vs State on 9 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Baloch vs State on 9 July, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/6218/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF No. 6218 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9005 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6326 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8103 of 2009
 

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


 

BALOCH
TARMOHMAD ALARAKHA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MUKESH H RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR HEMANG PARIKH AGP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/07/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Mr.

Mukesh H. Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in
spite of the order passed by this Court in C.A. No.12847/2009 dated
16.12.2009 in the present proceedings, nothing has been paid to the
applicants until now.

2. In
the first sessions, a request was made by learned AGP Mr. Hemang
Parikh to keep the matter at 4.30 p.m. today on the ground that by
the said time, necessary payment would be made to the applicants.
Accordingly, the matter was kept back at his request.

3. When
the matter was taken up at 4.30 p.m., two officials from the
concerned Department, viz. Kantilal Maganlal Dhoriyani, Dy. Executive
Engineer and D. N. Bakutara, Sr. Clerk, are present in the Court.
Under instructions from them, Mr. Parikh states that it would not be
possible to pay the amount in question to the applicants today.

4. Prima
facie, the conduct of the concerned officials amounts to disobeying
the directions of this Court. The Court would have directed
initiation of contempt proceedings against the concerned officials
but, with a view to give a last chance, the matter is adjourned to
12.07.2010. It is made clear that if necessary payment is not made
before 1100 hrs. on 12.07.2010, the Court shall direct initiation of
contempt proceedings against the erring officials.

5. S.O.

to 12.07.2010. To be listed at Sr. No.1 in the regular Board.

[K.

S. JHAVERI, J.]

Pravin/*

   

Top