Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5266/2002 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5266 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
HASMUKHBHAI
HARIBHAI PATEL & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SOUTH
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 15/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
petitioners, by this petition, have prayed for appropriate
directions to the respondents to hold the election of ordinary
members to the Senate of the South Gujarat University and more
particularly from the constituencies of Registered Graduates and
Teachers and a further prayer is made to direct the respondents not
to constitute the authorities under Section 15 of the South Gujarat
University Act, 1965, excluding the consideration of the
representation of the senate members from the constituencies of
Registered Members.
Ms.Harshal
Pandya for Mr.Upadhyay states that she has not received any
instruction from her clients as to whether the petition survives or
not.
It
appears from the record of the special civil application that the
General Body was to be constituted for a period of five years. The
petition came to be filed in the year 2002 and by afflux of time,
pending the petition, the said period of five years is over.
Under
these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in examining
the questions, which are raised in the petition for academic
purpose, as the petition has become infructuous by afflux of time.
Hence,
the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule
discharged. No order as to costs.
(Jayant Patel, J.)
(S.
R. Brahmbhatt, J.)
vinod
Top