Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/13319/1997 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 133 of 1997
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6269 of 1996
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1780 of 1997
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 133 of 1997
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
MUKUNDRAY
NARDASHANKER PANDYA - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance
:
NOTICE
UNSERVED for Appellant(s) : 1,
MS NISHA
PARIKH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 07/10/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH)
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th
November, 1996 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition
filed by the appellant. The appellant had filed the Special Civil
Application challenging the order of eviction from the Government
quarters. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the
ground that the petitioner had no legal right to retain the
possession of the Government quarters after he acquired his own
premises in the city of Ahmedabad. While dismissing the petition,
the learned Single Judge also directed the petitioner to vacate the
quarters forthwith and also directed the petitioner to pay costs of
Rs.2,000/- to the State Government.
2. This
Letters Patent Appeal came to be admitted on 14th
February, 1997 when the appellant was represented by his learned
advocate Mr. J.V. Desai. Unfortunately, upon the sad demise of Mr.
J.V. Desai, the Registry sent a notice to the appellant on 04th
August, 2008. As per the office endorsement, the notice could not be
served as the appellant was not found (he has sold his house). In
view of this development, we would have ordinarily called upon the
respondent authorities to find out the present address of the
appellant. However, considering the fact that what is challenged in
this appeal is the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the
petition and requiring the appellant petitioner to vacate the
Government quarters and the appellant has obviously already vacated
the Government quarters, we do not think any useful purpose would be
served by keeping this appeal pending. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed as infructuous.
Civil
Application for stay is also dismissed.
(
Mohit S. Shah, J. )
(
Harsha Devani, J. )
hki
Top