Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4943/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4943 of 2010
=========================================
NITINKUMAR
SITARAM BAROT
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR MANISH R RAVAL for
Petitioner
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 29/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
[1] The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking direction to the District Court,
Mehsana to consider and decide the representation made by the
petitioner on 18th January, 2010. The petitioner has also
prayed for direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Vadnagar to reconsider or decide the applications Ex.18 and 19 afresh
in accordance with law.
[2] Heard
Mr.Manish R. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.
[3] Since
the petitioner has already filed an appeal / representation under the
Right to Information Act before the District Court, Mehsana on 24th
January, 2010 and the same is still pending, there is no question to
issue any direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class
by this Court. However, it will be in the fitness of things that the
District Court, Mehsana shall decide an appeal / representation dated
24th January, 2010 of the petitioner as expeditiously as
possible and in accordance with law. The District Court is,
therefore directed to decide an appeal / representation dated 24th
January, 2010 of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in
accordance with law. The question of maintainability of appeal /
representation and the jurisdiction shall also be gone into by the
learned District Judge. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not
stated as to under which provision of Right to Information Act, he
has filed an appeal / representation before the District Court. It is
also not clearly stated in the appeal / representation as to whether
the District Court has any jurisdiction to decide such appeal and /
or representation under the Right to Information Act.
[4] Subject
to the above direction, this petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
[
K. A. PUJ, J. ]
(vijay)
Top