Special Civil Application No. … vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 17 June, 2015

Gujarat High Court
Special Civil Application No. … vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 17 June, 2015
        C/SCA/13272/2014                             ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13272 of 2014
==========================================================
          MINABEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL & 1....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MANTHAN K BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6.4
==========================================================
        CORAM:             HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
                              Date : 17/06/2015
                               ORAL ORDER

NOTICE, returnable on 13TH JULY, 2015.

(K.J.THAKER, J)
UMESH

Page 1 of 1

================================================================ vs State Of Gujarat – Through G R … on 18 March, 2015

Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs State Of Gujarat – Through G R … on 18 March, 2015
            C/MCA/690/2015                             ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 690 of 2015

             In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13897 of 2014

================================================================
               RAMESH AMBALAL PARMAR & 5....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
         STATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH G R ALORIA - SECRETARY &
                             3....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 6
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 6
================================================================

            CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
                   and
                   HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                             Date : 18/03/2015
                              ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)

Notice returnable on 30.04.2015. 
Respondents to be served on or before 01.04.2015. Before the 
returnable date, respondents shall either comply with the order of 
this Court or shall file their reply and remain present before the 
Court. 

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)

(A.G.URAIZEE,J)
Pravin

Page 1 of 1

================================================================ vs State Of Gujarat & on 13 March, 2015

Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs State Of Gujarat & on 13 March, 2015
       R/CR.MA/5253/2015                                     ORDER




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



  CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR TEMPORARY BAIL) NO. 5253 of
                                   2015

================================================================
                 BHARATBHAI BHANABHAI KAHAR....Applicant
                                Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BH SOLANKI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR NISHA M THAKOR, APP or the RESPONDENT - State
================================================================

            CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH
                   UPADHYAY

                             Date : 13/03/2015


                              ORAL ORDER

Notice returnable on 20.03.2015. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of the
respondent-State.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Salim/28

Page 1 of 1

================================================================ vs Dhirajlal Govindbhai Patel on 11 March, 2015

Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs Dhirajlal Govindbhai Patel on 11 March, 2015
         C/SCA/1557/2015                             ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1557 of 2015

================================================================
           SHREYANSHBHAI KUMARPAL SHAH....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
            DHIRAJLAL GOVINDBHAI PATEL....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDEEP N BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SANDEEP R LIMBANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI

                           Date : 11/03/2015


                            ORAL ORDER

The learned advocate for the petitioner had requested for
hearing the matter on priority basis. However, due to paucity
of time it was not possible to take up the matter for hearing.

Under the circumstances, the matter is adjourned to 24 th
March, 2015. In the meanwhile, it would be open for the
petitioner to seek an adjournment in the proceedings before
the trial court. In case such a request is made, the trial court
shall duly consider the same keeping in mind the fact that the
present petition is pending before this court.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.)
zgs

Page 1 of 1

Special Civil Application No. 438 … vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 10 March, 2015

Gujarat High Court
Special Civil Application No. 438 … vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 10 March, 2015
      C/SCA/438/2015                                      ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 438 of 2015
============================================================
====
            VINODBHAI BABUBHAI SAKALIA....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ SHASTRI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI

                            Date : 10/03/2015
                              ORAL ORDER

1. Leave to delete respondent No.3 from the array of the
respondents.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission
to bring on record the legal heirs referred to in the application
Exhibit-19 on the record of the case.

3. Permission as prayed for is granted. The cause-title be
amended accordingly.

4. Heard Mr. A. J. Shastri, learned advocate for the
petitioner.

5. After the cause-title is amended, Issue Notice
returnable on 24th March, 2015.

Direct service is permitted.

Page 1 of 2

       C/SCA/438/2015                         ORDER




                                     (HARSHA DEVANI, J.)
zgs




                       Page 2 of 2
 

================================================================ vs State Of Gujarat on 3 February, 2015

Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs State Of Gujarat on 3 February, 2015
          R/CR.MA/2258/2015                                         ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR TEMPORARY BAIL) NO. 2258 of
                                        2015

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

NATHUBHAI NATHABHAI MODHVADIA….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:

PARTY-IN-PERSON, PERSONAL CAPACITY for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KP RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
 
Date : 03/02/2015 
ORAL ORDER

1. Rule.  The   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   waives 
service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent­State.

2. This is an application for temporary bail filed by an under­
trial prisoner through his wife arrested in connection with C.R. No.I­95 
of 2014 registered with the Kalyanpur Police Station, District­Devbhumi 
Dwarka for the offence of murder.  

3. The temporary bail is prayed for on the ground that the wife 
of the accused viz.Nathiben is ailing and needs to undergo surgery for 
removal   of   stones   from   the   Kidney   as   certified   by   Pandit   Dindayal 
Upadhyay General Hospital, Rajkot.   The medical papers are placed on 
record.

4. Taking   into   consideration   the   the   ground   urged   in   this 

Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/2258/2015 ORDER

application, the application is allowed. The applicant­accused is ordered 
to be released on f temporary bail for a period of two weeks from the 
date   of   his   actual   release  on   his   executing   a   bail   bond   of   Rs.5,000/­ 
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the jail authorities on 
usual terms and conditions.

5. The   applicant­accused   shall   surrender   himself   to   the   jail 
authorities on or before the expiry of the temporary leave period.  Rule 
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.   Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) 
aruna

Page 2 of 2

=============================================== vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 6 January, 2015

Gujarat High Court
=============================================== vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 6 January, 2015
             R/SCR.A/12/2015                              ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

   SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 12 of 2015

===============================================
              DIPAK @ KANO VINODBHAI SONI....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
===============================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.K.P.RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                               Date : 06/01/2015

                                 ORAL ORDER

The application for parole leave is pending with the I.G. Prison.
The authority is directed to consider the same and decide in
accordance with law at the earliest. This application is accordingly
disposed of.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

dharmendra

Page 1 of 1

In The High Court Of Gujarat At … vs Moti Rantai Gram Panchayat on 5 January, 2015

Gujarat High Court
In The High Court Of Gujarat At … vs Moti Rantai Gram Panchayat on 5 January, 2015
         C/SCA/18648/2014                                ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
          SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18648 of 2014
============================================================
====
           PATEL MEENABEN SHAMBHUBHAI....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
        MOTI RANTAI GRAM PANCHAYAT, & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
               KUMARI

                            Date : 05/01/2015


                             ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.Tejas P. Satta, learned advocate for the 
petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner has made an 
application   dated   15.11.2014   to   respondent   No.2­ 
Talati­cum­Mantri, for change of her date of birth in 
the   record   as   well   as   for   the   issuance   of   a   fresh 
Birth Certificate showing the correct date of birth. 
However,   the   said   application   has   not   been   decided 
till date.

Issue   Notice   for   final   disposal,   making   it 
returnable on 20.01.2015.

In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct 
Service is also permitted. 

Page 1 of 2

C/SCA/18648/2014 ORDER

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)
piyush

Page 2 of 2

================================================================ vs Managing Director & 2 on 22 December, 2014

Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs Managing Director & 2 on 22 December, 2014
            C/SCA/18153/2014                                ORDER




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18153 of 2014

================================================================
  EXCLUSIVE FIBERS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EXCLUSIVE FIBERS
                       PVT LTD)....Petitioner
                             Versus
              MANAGING DIRECTOR & 2....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. SR SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
================================================================

            CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

                               Date : 22/12/2014


                                ORAL ORDER

At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, in
the interest of justice, list for further consideration on
02.02.2015.

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Salim/6

Page 1 of 1

================================================================ vs Commissioner Of Police & 2 on 10 December, 2014

Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs Commissioner Of Police & 2 on 10 December, 2014
        C/SCA/13488/2014                                           JUDGMENT



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13488 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
================================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
     the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
     judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
     to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
     order made thereunder ?

5    Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

================================================================
          KANAIYA LAL MULJIBHAI BHIMJI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
           COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN B RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KKASHYAP PUJARA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                                Date : 10/12/2014


                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1  This   petition   is   directed   against   the   order   of   detention   dated 

Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/13488/2014 JUDGMENT

06.09.2014   passed   by  respondent   No.1­The   Commissioner   of   Police, 
Ahmedabad City, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of 
the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short the 
PASA Act) by detaining the detenue as defined under Section 2(g) of the 
Act as immoral traffic offender. Along with the order of detention, the 
detenue is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of 
detention, there is a reference to one criminal case registered against the 
detenue before the Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, being CR No.II­
3364/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 of the 
Immoral   Traffic   (Prevention)   Act.   The   case   is   registered   under   the 
provisions of the Prevention Of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.

2  Learned Advocate Mr. C.B. Raval, for the detenue submits that, 
due to oversight, wrong facts of another case are wrongly crept in the 
petition and requested to the Court to ignore the said facts to consider 
the oral submission made before the Court in the interest of justice as 
the detenue is in custody from the date of his arrest in connection with 
the present offence. Learned Advocate further regrets for the incorrect 
facts   mentioned   in   the   petition   and   the   inconvenience   caused   to   the 
Court. He further submits that the order of detention impugned in this 
petition   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside   on   the   ground   that 
registration   of   solitary   complaint   for   the   offence   punishable   under 
Sections 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 by 
itself   cannot   bring   the   case   of   the   detenue   within   the   purview   of 
definition   under   Section   2(g)   of   the   Act.   Learned   Advocate   for   the 
detenue   further   submitted   that   illegal   activity   carried   out   as   alleged 
cannot have any nexus or bearing with maintenance of public order and 
at the most it can be said to be breach of law and order. It is further 
submitted that, except, statements of witnesses, registration of FIR and 
panchnama, no other relevant or cogent material is available on record 

Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/13488/2014 JUDGMENT

connecting the alleged anti­social activities of the detenue with breach of 
public order. 

3  Mr. C.B. Raval, learned Advocate for the detenue further submits 
that it is not possible to hold in the facts of the present case that the 
activities of the detenue with reference to the criminal case had affected 
even tempo of public life of the people at large or that on the basis of the 
criminal   case,   the   detenue   had   put   the   entire   social   apparatus   in 
disorder,   making   it   difficult   for   whole   system   to   exist   as   a   system 
governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

4  Mr.   Kkashyap   Puara,   learned   AGP   for   the   respondent   State 
supported  the  detention  order  passed  by  the  authority  and submitted 
that   sufficient   material   and   evidence   was   found   during   the   course   of 
investigation which was also supplied to the detenue itself indicate that 
the   detenue   is   in   habit   of   indulging   into   activities   as   defined   under 
Section   2(g)   of   the   Act   and   considering   the   facts   of   the   case,   the 
detaining  authority  has rightly  passed the  order  of detention  and the 
detention   order   deserves   to   be   upheld   by   this   Court.   However,   no 
affidavit­in­reply is filed on behalf of any of the respondents. 

5  Having heard the submissions of the parties and considering the 
request made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner with regard to 
the   wrong   facts   mentioned   in   the   petition   and   also   consider   the 
circumstances   of   the   case,   it   appears   that,   the   subjective   satisfaction 
arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and 
in   accordance   with   law   inasmuch   as   the   offences   alleged   in   the   FIR, 
cannot have any bearing on the public order since the law of the land i.e. 
the Act, 1956 and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take 
care   of   the   situation   and   that   the   allegations   as   have   been   levelled 

Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/13488/2014 JUDGMENT

against the detenue, cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of 
bringing the detenue within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and 
unless and until the material is there to make out a case that the person 
concerned has become a threat and a menace to the  society so as to 
disturb   the   whole   tempo   of   the   society   and   that   the   whole   social 
apparatus   is   in   peril   disturbing   public   order   at   the   instance   of   such 
person,   it   cannot   be   said   that,   the   detenue   is   a   person   within   the 
meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Except general statements, there is 
no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a 
manner which is dangerous to the public order.

6  In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this petition because 
simplicitor registration of FIR by itself cannot have any nexus with the 
breach   of   maintenance   of   public   order   and   the   authority   can   have 
recourse under the Act, 1956 and no other relevant or cogent material 
exists for invoking powers under Section 3(1) of 3(2) of the Act. That 
the State Government has not filed affidavit­in­reply to this petition.

7  In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of 
detention   dated   06.09.2014   passed   by   respondent   No.1­The 
Commissioner   of   Police,   Ahmedabad   City,   is   hereby   quashed   and   set 
aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if the detenue 
is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute 
to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)
chandresh

Page 4 of 4