Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/990/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 990 of 2011
=====================================================
NARESHBHAI
MAGANBHAI VANKAR & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
MR
BHUSHAN B OZA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for ....
None
for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 08/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers:
“A.
Admit and allow this petition;
B. Issue
a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Advertisement
Annexure-A dated 26.12.2010 and the corrigendum Annexure-I as
illegal,without authority of law and arbitrary and malafide and be
pleased to quash the same and be further direct the respondents to
continue the petitioners;
Or
in the alternative-
Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction
directing the respondents, their agents and servants to continue the
petitioners and other Mats by treating them as regular Mats upto 28th
February,2014 on the basis of the Resolution dated 15.9.2010
Annexure-D and to give all other consequential benefits.
C.
Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct
the respondents, their agents and servants not to terminate the
petitioners and services of other similarly situated Mats;
D.To
pass such other and further orders necessary in the interest of
justice.”
2. At
the very outset Mr.Bhushan B.Oza, learned advocate for the
petitioners states that the interest of justice would be met if the
petitioners (two in number) are permitted to make a representation to
the Commissioner, Rural Development (respondent No.3) herein, who may
be directed to consider and decide the same, within a stipulated
period of time.
3. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the
petitioners, the following order is passed:
The
petitioners are permitted to make a representation to respondent
No.3 within a period of two weeks from today. In the event that the
petitioners make a representation within the stipulated period of
time, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same, in
accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of the representation.
4. It
is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered
into the merits of the case.
5. The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)
arg
Top