Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Deshubha vs Vijyalaxmiben on 22 March, 2011
Author: C.K.Buch,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/136/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 136 of 2008
 

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

 

DESHUBHA
KESARISINH JADEJA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

VIJYALAXMIBEN
JOSHI - CHAIR PERSON & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS.
JR ACHARYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. 
MR SATYAM
CHHAYA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/03/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Having
considered the totality emerging from the petition, especially the
contents of the documents attached with this petition, the Court is
not inclined to issue notice to the other side in this tender matter.
The Court is also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by
Ms.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner that son of the
petitioner had gone on hunger strike on 15th January, 2008
and was given assurance by the leaders of a political party and the
officers of the Electricity Company that his grievances would be
resolved and therefore, the son of the petitioner had ended the
hunger strike. The person who had gone on hunger strike was one of
the partners of the petitioner’s business.

It
would not be proper for the Court to entertain the petition, merely
because, one of the M.L.As. of Abdasa constituency, namely, Jayanti
Bhanushali, had made a complaint about the loss that was likely to be
suffered by the Electricity Company on account of non-opening of the
tender filed by the petitioner. One of the documents, which is at
page 22 of the petition, on the contrary, suggests that after
submitting the tender in the sealed envelope, some clarificatory
letter was addressed by the petitioner and indicating that he was to
be given the tender contract.

In
short, there is no merit in the petition and, therefore, the same is
dismissed in limine. Mr.Satyam Chhaya, learned AGP for the State has
nothing more to add.

[C.K.

BUCH, J.]

pirzada/-

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.137 seconds.