Gujarat High Court High Court

Lawyers vs The on 4 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Lawyers vs The on 4 February, 2011
Author: B.J.Shethna,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7928/2005	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7928 of 2005
 

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

 

LAWYERS
INITIATIVE AND RESEARCH TRUST - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS - Respondents
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BP GUPTA for the
Petitioner.  
MR SIRAJ GORI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent No. : 1. 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondents : 1, 4, 
MR
PR NANAVATI for Respondent Nos. : 2 and 4. 
MR ASIM PANDYA FOR M/S
HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent No. : 3.    
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/01/2007 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA)

1. As
per the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, Ms. Kavita
S. Solanki, Hon’ble Secretary of the petitioner-Trust has filed
further additional affidavit today and along with the same, Circular
Resolution dated 11-08-2006 is annexed which does not bear the
signature of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. A. Mehta (Retd.), President of
the petitioner-Trust.

2. It
is clear from the said Circular Resolution that when this petition
was filed in 2005, there was no such Circular Resolution.

3. In
that view of the matter, Mr. B. P. Gupta for the petitioner seeks
permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh and
proper petition. However, Mr. Premal Nanavati for respondent-AUDA
submitted that such permission be granted if it is permissible under
the law. Mr. Asim Pandya appearing for the private respondent
submitted that if such petition is maintainable in the eye of law,
then liberty be reserved to raise objection regarding delay and other
contentions raised in the petition.

4. If
fresh petition is permissible under the law, then the petitioner can
certainly file such petition. With these observations, the petition
stands dismissed as withdrawn. Interim relief, if any, granted
earlier stands vacated.

5. At
this stage, Mr. Gupta submitted that it may be made clear that
without going into the merits, this petition is disposed of as
withdrawn. It goes without saying that we have not touched the
merits of the case.

[B.

J. SHETHNA, J.]

[H.

B. ANTANI, J.]

/shamnath

   

Top