Gujarat High Court High Court

Patel vs State on 30 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Patel vs State on 30 September, 2011
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/14199/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14199 of
2011 
 
=========================================================


 

PATEL
BHARATBHAI CHHANABHAI - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondents
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
DILIP L KANOJIYA for
Petitioner : 1 
MS. V.S.PATHAK LD. AGP for Respondent : 1 
None
for Respondents : 2 -
6. 
========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/09/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Learned advocate Shri
Sanjanwala with Shri Dilip L. Kanojiya appearing for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw this petition and makes request that
the order impugned in the Revision is in fact order, which could not
have been passed at all and therefore, let there be a direction to
the concerned authority for expeditious hearing and disposing of the
Revision Application whereunder the interim relef is rejected vide
order dated 11.08.2011.

Learned AGP, on advance
copy submitted that the original order impugned in the revision is
that of the year 2002, Court may pass appropriate order.

This Court is of the
view that though the order impugned in the revision is old but when
the applicant has approached the concerned authority, the same
deserves to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Hence,
while granting permission to withdraw this petition, it is observed
that the respondent authority, before whom the Revision Application
is pending, may decide the same as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Permission as sought for is granted. The matter is disposed of as
withdrawn.

At this stage, Shri
Sanjanwala, learned advocate submitted that let there be a direction
to the authority to decide the matter on merits without being
infulenced by the interim order. The apprehension expressed by Shri
Sanjanwala is misconceived, it goes without saying that the
authority will have to decide the matter in accordance with law.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)

Pankaj

   

Top