Loading...

Kirankumar vs State on 17 June, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Kirankumar vs State on 17 June, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/3113/2007	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 3113 of 2007
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19124 of 2007
 

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


 

KIRANKUMAR
RAMESHBHAI RATHWA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH GURU CHARAN SINGH & 2 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for
Opponent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

[
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/06/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
applicant has preferred the present application on the ground that
the direction issued by this Court in its order dated 02.08.2007
passed in Special Civil Application No.19124/07 has not been
complied with.

Upon
hearing Mr.Suthar with Mr.Majmudar for the applicant, it appears
that as such, in the order, there is no clear reference to a
particular authority who had to decide the representation. However,
Mr.Suthar, learned counsel for the applicant states that the
direction is given to the respondent State Authority and respondent
No.3 being the Director General of Police would be the concerned
State Authority who had to decide the representation. The learned
counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has also
produced on record the copy of the proof showing the receipt of the
representation by the office of the Director General of Police, copy
whereof is produced at Annexure-B.

Under
these circumstances, we find that it would be just and proper to
direct the respondent No.3, Director General of Police, to decide
the representation of the petitioner, copy whereof is produced at
Annexure-B within a period of three months from the receipt of the
order of this Court, in the event such representation is not
decided. It is also made clear that it would also be open to the
respondent No.3 to call for the copy of the representation in case
the copy is not available in his office and if the decision is
taken, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners. In the
event the aforesaid direction is not complied with, the petitioners
shall be at the liberty to move appropriate application.

Disposed
of accordingly. D.S.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.)

(AKIL KURESHI, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top

Leave a Comment

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information