Gujarat High Court High Court

Devisaraswati vs State on 21 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Devisaraswati vs State on 21 September, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5123/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5123 of 2010
 

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


 

DEVISARASWATI
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD THROUGH - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
DP KINARIWALA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3,5 - 6. 
UNSERVED-EXPIRED
(N) for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

By
way of this petition the petitioner has made following reliefs.

(A) Be
pleased to allow this petition;

(B) Be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to inquire
into the allegation made against the respondent No.6 in the notice,
dated 16.11.2009;

(C) Be
pleased to grant any other relief which deems fit and proper in the
interest of justice.

2. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.6 was
appointed as administrator and therefore when the irregularity and
misconducts were pointed out to him, it was his duty to inquire into
the same and to take appropriate action. However, no such action is
taken and petitioner society is directed to initiate appropriate
action.

3. Having
heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it appears that
petitioner society has an alternative remedy by way of filing Regular
Lavad Suit before the Board of Nominee, if no such action is taken by
the respondents No.1 to 3. This Court in the writ jurisdiction cannot
direct the respondent-authority to initiate action against respondent
No.6. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits does not
require to be interfered with and stands disposed of accordingly.
Notice is discharged.

(K
S JHAVERI, J.)

sompura

   

Top