Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4028/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4028 of 2011
=========================================================
AESHA
VIREN TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PHARMACY COUNCIL THROUGH REGISTRAR & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MITUL K SHELAT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS.SAMATA V PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
DHAVAL G NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 3 - 5.
MRS VD NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 4,
MR
JANAK RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 08/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner is a student who has prosecuted her studies from
respondent No.3 institute and cleared the course in 2009. The
petitioner has come with a grievance that her name is not being
registered in the register maintained by respondent concerned.
2. The
objection appears to have been raised on the ground that though AICTE
granted its approval to the respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has not
extended its approval/recognition in favour of the respondent No.3
institute. Therefore, though respondent No.4 University has no
objection and so far as the case with respondent No.3 institute is
concerned it is only on the ground of certain objections raised by
respondent No.2 that the petitioner’s case is yet not cleared.
3. Heard
Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr.Shelat. He has
submitted that after receipt of the communication from respondent
No.2 counsel, the respondent No.3 institute has already forwarded the
necessary response and compliance under communication dated 6th
January, 2011 which completely complies with and fulfills the
requirement of respondent No.2 as intimated to the institute under
letter dated 23rd December, 2010 and that therefore there
must now not be any objection against the respondent No.3 institute
and/or petitioner’s enrollment.
4. Mr.Nanavati,
lerned senior counsel for respondent No.2 institute has appeared and
submitted that he has received certain oral instructions and
according to which there are some technical issues which need to be
ironed out and in all probability, having regard to the response
submitted by respondent No.3 institute vide communication dated 6th
January, 2011 the issue will be resolved in short time.
5. Therefore,
so as to enable the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision and
convey its approval/recognition to respondent No.3 institute and also
to respondent No.4 or in alternative to place its final decision on
record of present petition, stand over to 19 th
April, 2011.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
Amit
Top
