Gujarat High Court High Court

Mahesh vs State on 10 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Mahesh vs State on 10 March, 2010
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
  
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 

SCA/17401/2005	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17401 of 2005
 

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


 

MAHESH
DESAI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HASMUKH C PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR RAJKUMAR CHAUMAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS
SANGITA VISHEN AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
4. 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

Date
: 10/03/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs;

[A] This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

[B] This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent authorities
to produce the R & P and all correspondences between the
petitioner and respondents.

[C] This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent
authorities to produce the State Policy for giving advertisements to
the daily newspapers.

[D] This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to
give advertisements to the petitioner in accordance with law.

[E] Pending
admission and final hearing this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities, particularly,
respondent nos.3 & 4 to start giving advertisements to the
petitioner.

[F] This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent
authorities to give compensation of Rs.20,23,000/- to the petitioner
towards the loss caused by the illegal action of the respondent
authorities.

[G] ……..

2. After
arguing the matter and when learned counsel for the petitioner
realized that this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition,
he requested the Court that the petitioner may be granted liberty to
make appropriate representation to the respondent-authority in the
subject matter and that necessary directions may be issued to the
respondent-authority to consider the same.

3. In
view of the above request made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
it is observed that if the petitioner makes a representation to the
respondent-authority, in the subject matter, then the same shall be
considered by the appropriate authority keeping in mind the
guidelines framed by it for issuance of Advertisements and shall
dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. With the above
observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.

[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]

Pravin/*