Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12350/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12350 of 2011
=========================================================
HAZRAT
MOULANA MEHBUB DARGAH MASJID AND QABARASTAN TRUST & 1 -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MTM HAKIM for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,4 - 5.
NOTICE SERVED BY
DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 5,
MR LR PATHAN for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 10/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Mr.A.A.Ansari,
learned advocate, states that the matter be adjourned as
Mr.I.H.Saiyed, learned advocate, who has received instructions to
appear on behalf of respondent No.4, is not available.
The
request is opposed by Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, learned advocate for the
petitioners, by pointing out that though Mr.Ansari made a statement
on 27.09.2011, that has been recorded in the order of that date, to
the effect that Mr.I.H.Saiyed, learned advocate, has received
instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.1, and time had
been prayed for to file the Vakalatnama, no Vakalatnama has been
filed by Mr.Saiyed, till date. It is further submitted by the learned
advocate for the petitioners that on 06.09.2011, another learned
advocate had stated that he has received instructions to appear on
behalf of respondent No.5 and time had been granted in order to file
the Vakalatnama and affidavit-in-reply and the matter was directed to
be listed on 27.09.2011. However, no Vakalatnama has been filed on
behalf of respondent No.5, as well. It is the submission of the
learned advocate for the petitioners that respondents Nos.4 and 5 are
resorting to delaying tactics in order to defeat the purpose of
filing the petition, as another person (namely, respondent No.5),
has been appointed as Mujavar of the Dargah on 23.08.2011, and an
amendment to this effect has been permitted to be made in the
memorandum of the petition.
As
no Vakalatnama has been filed by Mr.I.H.Saiyed on behalf of
respondent No.4, as stated by Mr.Ansari on 27.09.2011, and as no
Vakalatnama has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, a last
opportunity for doing so is granted to the said respondents, failing
which, the Court may carry on with the hearing of the petition.
List
on 17.10.2011.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top