Gujarat High Court High Court

Manchihiben vs State on 12 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Manchihiben vs State on 12 October, 2011
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4250/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4250 of 2011
 

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

 

MANCHIHIBEN
WD/O THAKORBHAI PARBHUBHAI PATEL & 13 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
KK TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 14. 
MR HK PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/10/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Learned
AGP Shri Patel has placed on record the order dated 11.10.2011 and
copy of the village form No.6 with a copy to the petitioner’s
advocate.

2. The
learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Trivedi has submitted that in
view of this, petitioner’s grievance does not survive and petition
may be disposed of.

3. Learned
AGP, at this stage has submitted that apropos to the order passed on
11.10.2011 the competent authority and Additional Collector (ULC),
Surat Shri Jayantibhai Bhikhabhai Patel, the author of page 34 is
present in the Court and he submits that letter was sent to abolish
the possibility of 3rd party rights and he has not
slightest intention on his part to over right the process of the
Court so as to defeat the right of the petitioner in any manner.

3.1 He
further submits that in case, it is overstepping of authority then
the same may be pardoned, as it was not actuated by any malice and it
was purely a bona fide act.

4. This
clarifications should work as an end to the matter. The Court’s
anxiety with regard to that in future this type of communication may
not be originated from party litigants to its sub-ordinate officers.

5. With
these observations, application is disposed of.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)

dks

   

Top