Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6906/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6906 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6907 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6909 of 2010
=========================================================
RATHOD
SANGEETABEN RATANSING & 15 – Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEP. & 5 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
: [SCA NO. 6906/2010 & 6908/2010]
MS
SNEHA A JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 – 16.
MR JK SHAH AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1 – 4.
None for Respondent(s) : 5 6.
Appearance
: [SCA NO. 6907/2010 & 6909/2010]
MS
SNEHA A JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 – 16.
MRS KRINA CALLA AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1 – 4.
None for Respondent(s) : 5 6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 16/06/2010
ORAL
COMMON ORDER
1. On
15.06.2010 Ms. S.A. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
sought permission from this Court for circulation of a matter. After
hearing the learned counsel on the issue of urgency, the Court
granted her permission to move the matter and accordingly, the
requisite form for urgent circulation was supplied.
2. Pursuant
to the permission granted by this Court for urgent circulation of one
matter, five petitions were moved in the Registry at around 1615
hrs., on 15.06.2010. It is pertinent to note that permission was
granted to move only one matter but, instead five matters have been
moved. Moreover, in four out of the five matters, the xerox copy of
the note for urgent circulation has been annexed. Apart from that the
words five matters , as is appearing in the said note as also
the xerox copies, creates doubts in our minds about its genuineness.
This is nothing but, a mischief played either by the learned Advocate
for the petitioners or her registered Clerk to see that all the five
matters are listed for hearing before this Court today. On account of
the above mischief, the functioning of the concerned Department in
the Registry was also severely disturbed resulting into late
preparation of the Board and consequently, late delivery of regular
matters to the residence of Hon’ble Judges for their reference.
3. In
view of the above misconduct committed either by the learned Advocate
for the petitioners or the registered Clerk, these petitions does not
deserve to be entertained only on this ground. The Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the
petitions stand rejected.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top