Gujarat High Court High Court

Dilipbhai vs State on 15 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai vs State on 15 July, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/8827/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8827 of 2011
 

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

DILIPBHAI
C NATHVANI - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondents
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR MIHIR
JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR
DIPEN A DESAI for Petitioner. 
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS SANGEETA VISHEN,
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents. 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 15/07/2011 
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

We
have heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Dipen A. Desai for the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned
Advocate General assisted by Mr. P. K. Jani, learned Government
Pleader and Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondents.

Learned
Advocate General has very fairly stated that under a mistake, two
orders were passed by the respondents. By the first order, the
respondents have not extended the term of the Market Committee and
by the second order, they have appointed an Administrator and the
Administrator had taken over the charge of the Market Committee. He
further submitted that though the order of this Court has not been
received by the respondents, under a mistake, the aforesaid two
orders have been passed. The respondents have apologized for the
said mistake and statement is made by the learned Advocate General
that the respondents are withdrawing both orders with liberty to
pass fresh order after going through the order passed by this Court.

Learned
Advocate General has further urged that this petition is required to
be heard by the learned Single Judge and not by the Division Bench.

However,
in view of the statement made by learned Advocate General, counsel
for the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition with a
liberty to file fresh writ petition. The prayer is accepted. The
writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh
petition.

Sd/-

[V. M. SAHAI, J.]

Sd/-

[G. B. SHAH, J.]

Savariya

   

Top