Gujarat High Court High Court

Chandubhai vs State on 18 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Chandubhai vs State on 18 July, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1227120/2007	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12271 of 2007
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12272 of 2007
 

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


 

CHANDUBHAI
C. ODE - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS BHAVIKA
KOTECHA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/07/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Mr.Majmudar
is not present in the second round. Hence, dismissed for default.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.)

Date
: 18/07/2008

ORAL
ORDER

Before
the order is signed, Mr.Suthar, prays for restoration. Hence,
restored.

I
have heard the learned advocate appearing for both the sides.

The
present petition is for challenging the order passed by the
Collector and its confirmation thereof by the Director and the State
Government, whereby the application of the petitioner has been
rejected for grant of lease.

Upon
hearing the learned advocate appearing for both the sides and the
perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had applied for
grant of lease in the year 2003 for a period of 3 years. The said
period of lease has in any case expired in the year 2006.
Therefore, the petition has become infructuous and the reason being
that no lease can be granted with the retrospective effect nor the
legality and validity of the exercise of the power can be considered
after the expiry of the period of 3 years for which the petitioner
had applied for lease. Further, if the lease is to be ordered, it
will be for a fresh policy of the Government prevailing by now.

Therefore,
the petition has become infructuous. However, if the petitioner is
desirous and the policy of the Government so permits, the petitioner
may apply for fresh lease for the future period and if such an
application is made, the same may be considered and decided in
accordance with law.

The
petition is disposed of accordingly. D.S.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top