Gujarat High Court High Court

Chetan vs Mamlatdar on 8 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Chetan vs Mamlatdar on 8 November, 2011
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/12205/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12205 of 2011
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15476 of 2011
 

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


 

CHETAN
OVERSEAS PVT LTD THRO SATISH BANSILAL - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

MAMLATDAR,IDAR
& 1 - Respondents
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
VIRAL
K SHAH for Petitioner: 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondents : 1 - 2. 
MR
MANISH J PATEL for Respondent :
2, 
================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/11/2011 

 

 
 
COMMON
ORAL ORDER

Learned
AGP Ms.Mini Nair makes a request for time. Time is granted. Matters
are kept on 10/11/2011. The grievances raised by the petitioner in
both these petitions unequivocally go to indicate the following:

(1) There
exist an order under which the petitioner was held to be highest
bidder int eh auction by this Court, and as one of the term for
bidding the petitioner was not to be saddled with any past debts or
liabilities of the then existing unit, namely SRU.

(2) The
purchase is finalised in the year 2004.

(3) Till
date the petitioner is deprived of the requisite permission for
putting the property to proper use.

(4) The
respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 are in fact under an obligation to come
out with appropriate justification or semblance of justification
for not processing the requisite permission. The existing affidavit
placed on record unfortunately do not indicate any cogent reason
justifying the denial of requisite permission.

2.
Be that a it may; the time as requested for is granted, with a clear
observation that the inaction on the part of the concerned officer
would be viewed very seriously especially in view of the fact that
the petitioner has made averments on oath in the memo of the petition
with regard to extraneous consideration working for withholding th e
requisite permission in question.

[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]

/vgn

   

Top