Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1728/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1728 of 2007
=========================================================
MIRAL
LAILESHKUMAR DOSHI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PM VYAS for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR HIREN P VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MS SEJAL H
VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR BC DAVE for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR BHAVNESH J JOSHI for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 24/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
On
11.03.2011, the following order was passed.
” Learned
advocate Mr.P.M.Vyas has submitted the pursis seeking permission for
retiring. He is aware that the retirement pursis is issued on
08.03.2011.
In
view of this, when stay is obtained by the petitioner, and when the
matter is placed and it is ready for final hearing, he would seek
unnecessary retirement.
At
this stage, he withdraws the note for retirement and he would be
ready with the matter on 14.03.2011.”
On
earlier occasion, on 11.03.2011, this Court noted that the matter is
of the year 2007, the stay is obtained and learned advocate for the
petitioner Mr.Vyas would be ready with the matter as he has
withdrawn the note of retirement from the matter. The matter was
listed on 14.03.2011.
Today,
learned advocate Mr.Vyas appeared and submitted that he is unable to
conduct the matter as the letter was sent to the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 indicating therein that he is retiring from the matter. This
Court is of the view that when the matter is listed for final
hearing and interim relief have been obtained, the petitioner is not
really interested with the matter and is not vigilant to keep their
advocate posted with the facts and or further development in the
matter. RPAD sent to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 has returned with an
endorsement that petitioners have left. Petitioners are happened to
be father and a son, as per the submission of the learned advocate
Mr.Vyas at the Bar.
The
Court is of the view that the matter is therefore required to be
disposed of as the petitioners are no more interested in prosecuting
this matter. The Court is of the view that in this situation,
interim-relief cannot be permitted to be continued and the petition
is required to be dismissed, for want of prosecution. Orders
accordingly.
Interim-relief
granted earlier, stands vacated. Liberty to approach this Court, in
case of any difficulties.
[S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.]
..mitesh..
Top