Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7671/1991 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7671 of 1991
=========================================
AMAD
BHACHANDA @ BHACHAYA (FISHERMAN) & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY,
& 17 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
NOTICE
SERVED for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR PRANAV DAVE, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1
None for
Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2 -
18.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 28/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition is of the year 1991. Considering the fact that the
advocate, who was earlier appearing on behalf of the petitioners, was
appointed as a Judge, vide order dated 18/03/2010, the learned Single
Judge directed the Registry to issue notice upon the petitioners
making it returnable on 20/04/2010. It appears that pursuant to the
same, Registry issued notice upon the petitioners making it
returnable on 20/04/2010. On 20/04/2010, this Court passed the
following order:
Mr.
Hardik D. Muchhala, learned advocate states that Mr. M.K. Vakharia,
learned advocate has received instructions to appear on behalf of the
petitioners and prays for some time in order to file the Vakalatnama.
List on 13/05/2010.
2. Thereafter,
again the petition was placed on board before the learned Single
Judge on 13/05/2010 and the learned Single Judge passed the following
order:
The
endorsement on the Board indicates the Notices issued to the
petitioners on 18/03/2010, have been served. On inquiry, the Court is
informed that the said notices have been served on 05/04/2010. On
20/04/2010, Mr.Hardik D. Muchhala, learned advocate had stated that
Mr.M.K.Vakharia, learned advocate has received instructions to appear
on behalf of the petitioners and some time was prayed for in order to
file the Vakalatnama.
Today,
when the matter is called out, it does not appear from the record
that the Vakalatnama has been filed by the learned counsel on behalf
of the petitioners. One more opportunity is granted to do the
needful. List on 28/06/2010.
3. Despite
the above and despite the fact that notices have been served upon the
petitioners as far back as on 05/04/2010, neither the petitioners nor
anybody has appeared on their behalf.
4. Hence,
the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Notice is
discharged. Ad-interim-relief granted earlier, if any, stands
vacated.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top