Gujarat High Court High Court

=========================================Appearance vs It on 21 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
=========================================Appearance vs It on 21 September, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

ST/8885/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

STAMP
NUMBER (SPL.C.A.) No. 8885 of 2010
 

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

BHARATBHAI
PRANLALBHAI VYAS 

 

Versus
 

AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE AND ANOTHER 

 

=========================================Appearance
: 
MR PRABHAKAR
UPADYAY for
the Petitioner . 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/09/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. It
is really painful that the learned advocate has filed this petition
on 30.7.2010 without Index, without List of Events and without one
single annexures, though in the memo of petition, Annexures are
mentioned from ‘A’ to ‘I’. The matter was examined and office
objections were notified and were conveyed to the learned advocate on
23.8.2010. As the learned advocate did not bother to remove the
office objections, the matter was required to be notified before the
Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 30.8.2010, who granted time to
remove office objections upto 18th September 2010. During
those 18 days, the learned advocate did not remove the office
objections, therefore, the matter is listed before this Court.

2. On
perusal of the papers, it is noticed that in the month of July 2010,
the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief, as under:-

24(B)
Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct
the respondents to grant the promotion to the present petitioner to
the post of Superintendent from the deemed date i.e. 01.10.1994
as per the Resolution No.336 of dated 03.08.1998 passed
by the present respondent no.2, Transport Committee.

On
the face of it, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on both
the counts.

(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)

omkar

   

Top