Gujarat High Court High Court

D vs State on 8 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
D vs State on 8 September, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1947/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1947 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7684 of 2010
 

with
 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No.9203 of 2010 
=========================================


 

D
C PARMAR - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
JJ YAJNIK for Appellant(s) : 1, 
MS. KRINA CALLA, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/09/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

Heard
counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent.
From the record, we find that learned Single Judge dismissed the case
on the ground of delay, as is evident from order dated 8th
July, 2010. The relevant portion is quoted below:-

The
petitioner had approached this Court with Special Civil Application
No.4183/1996, which came to be disposed of by judgment dated
31.3.2000 along with allied matters. The petitioner came to be
relegated to the Government for deciding the issue raised by him
about the increment. The decision went against him and he was
informed in the year 2002 by the Deputy Secretary. Thereafter, in the
year 2005, he preferred Misc.Civil Application for reviving the
petition, which came to be rejected in the year 2005 itself. The
petitioner was, therefore, aware about his cause of action when he
preferred petition in 1996 and then again Misc. Civil Application in
2005. Despite it, there has been total inaction on the part of the
petitioner in pursuing his cause. It is only in 2010 he comes out
with this petition. The delay, therefore, has to be treated as
inordinate. The petition is, therefore, rejected on the ground of
delay and laches.

In
view of un-explained delay, we are not inclined to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal and CA both stand
dismissed.

(S.J.

Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)

(Anant
S. Dave, J.)

*/Mohandas

   

Top