Loading...

Maulin vs State on 14 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Maulin vs State on 14 December, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

WPPIL/5/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

WRIT
PETITION (PIL) No. 5 of 2010
 

 


 

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


 

MAULIN
J BAROT - PETITIONER
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - RESPONDENT
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for PETITIONER : 1, 
MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for RESPONDENT
: 1, 
None for RESPONDENT : 2 -
4. 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/12/2010  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

This
so-called public interest litigation has been preferred by an
advocate to call upon the State Government to place before the High
Court the administrative decision of giving plots of land admeasuring
330 sq. mtrs. in favour of Members of Legislative Assembly and
Members of Parliament of different political parties at Gandhinagar
at concessional rate and quash such decision.

Mr
PK Jani, learned Government Pleader while appearing on behalf of the
respondent – State refers to Rule 5 of the High Court of
Gujarat
(Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010
and submits that this writ petition does not fall within the purview
of the public interest litigation, on hearing the parties, we not
only find that a vague prayer has been made and no specific
allegation of illegal allotment of plots of land in favour of one or
other Members of Legislative Assembly or Members of Parliament has
been shown, but we also find that no public interest is involved in
this case. For the said reason, we are not inclined to entertain
this writ petition and dismiss the same. However, taking into
consideration the fact that the writ petitioner is a young lawyer, we
do
not impose any costs.

The
writ petition stands dismissed.

[S.J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]

[K.

M. THAKER, J.]

sundar/-

   

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