Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1838/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 1838 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 652 of 2011
=========================================================
PARMAR
PRAVINBHAI JETHABHAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
VISTARAN
ADHIKARISHRI & 6 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Applicant(s) :
1,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 1,3 - 5.
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Opponent(s) : 2, 6,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s)
: 7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 29/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
Court has passed the following order while deciding Special Civil
Application No.652 of 2011 on 27.1.2011:
“Heard
party-in-person.
This
petition is filed by the present petitioner to declare the resolution
no.37(1) dated 30.3.2010 as void. He submits that he preferred the
application before the DDO, Palanpur through his advocate being Case
No.1250 of 2010 which is pending before the DDO. He submits that it
is informed by DDO that the matter will not be decided for five
years. Hence, he approached this Court.
As
per letter dated 28.12.2010 addressed by the DDO, Palanpur to the
present petitioner, the specimen signature along with the disputed
signatures were sent to the FSL for investigation and after receiving
the report, the DDO will decide the matter.
In
view of the above, DDO, Palanpur is hereby directed to dispose of the
Case No.1250 of 2010 as early a possible, preferably within two
months from the date of receipt of this order. The DDO is also
directed to take immediate steps for calling reports from the FSL. In
view of the above, this petition is disposed of. Office is directed
to give copy of this order to the present petitioner.”
The
petitioner preferred this review application and submitted that the
DDO, Palanpur has not taken the decision as directed by the aforesaid
order. He placed on record the letter dated 21.5.2011 written by the
Assistant Director (Documents Division), Gandhinagar addressed to the
present petitioner stating that though certain queries were called
for vide letter dated 24.12.2010, the same were not complied with and
so nothing remains to be done by the office of the FSL.
It
is a matter of great shock and surprise that though the aforesaid
order is passed by this Court, no decision is taken by the DDO,
Palanpur.
Learned
advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli appears for respondents no.4 and 5 and
learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appears for the other respondents. S.O.
to 8.9.2011.
(
M.D.Shah, J )
srilatha
Top