Gujarat High Court High Court

Vimalbhai vs Regional on 2 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Vimalbhai vs Regional on 2 February, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/918/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 918 of 2010
 

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

 

VIMALBHAI
MANSUKHBHAI DHOLARIYA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DK NAKRANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, Assistant Government Pleader
for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 02/02/2010  
 
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)

The petitioner has filed
this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India praying
for quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 9.1.2010
detaining the vehicle in question.

Heard Mr.B.K.Nakrani,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Maithili Mehta,
learned Assistant Government Pleader on advance copy being served to
the Government Pleader’s office. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has not accepted the
petitioner’s application dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure-B) alongwith
which all original documents were intended to be filed with the
respondent No.1. He has further submitted that due to his poor
financial position the petitioner could not pay the outstanding
vehicle tax and hence asked for installments. Before filing the
present petition, the petitioner has not availed the alternative
remedy available to the petitioner and hence we do not entertain
this petition at this stage. However, interest of justice would
better be served if the respondent No.1 is directed to accept the
petitioner’s application alongwith which the original documents are
intended to be produced by the petitioner and the said application
may be decided in accordance with law. With regard to petitioner’s
request for installments for payment of vehicle tax the petitioner
can approach the Regional Transport Commissioner and he would
consider the petitioner’s request as per the guidelines (Annexure-I)
issued by him in accordance with law.

Subject to the aforesaid
directions and observations this petition is accordingly disposed
off. Direct service is permitted.

(K. A. PUJ, J.) (RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)

kks

   

Top