Gujarat High Court High Court

President vs Ramanbhai on 8 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
President vs Ramanbhai on 8 April, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/609/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 609 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2854 of 2010
 

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


 

DESAI
AMRUTBHAI PRABHATBHAI 

 

PRESIDENT
OF MANKNAJ VIVIDH & ORS. - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

RAMANBHAI
UJAMBHAI PATEL & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
UMANG H OZA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 10. 
None for Respondent(s) : 1
- 2,4 - 5. 
MR P.K. JANI,  GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

					Date
: 08/04/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Appellants
are the original respondents Nos. 4 to13. They have challenged a
judgment and order dated 29th March, 2010 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2854 of 2010.

We
have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government
Pleader Mr. P.K. Jani for respondent No.3. We are of the view that
the learned Single Judge has not passed any order which adversely
affects the appellants. The original petitioners’ request for early
hearing of the appeal pending before the authorities alone was
accepted. We do not see how the appellants can be aggrieved by such
a direction. We notice that the petitioners have not challenged the
orders by which the Government authorities refused to join them in
the pending litigation. The observations of the learned Single Judge
that the Appellate Authority may decide the appeal in accordance
with law, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing must
be understood in this context. We do not find that the learned
Single Judge meant to give hearing anyone who are not parties in the
appeal.

In view of the above clarification, learned counsel for the
appellants seeks permission to withdraw this appeal. Permission
granted. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No order on the
Civil Application.

(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
C.J.)

(Akil
Kureshi, J.)

*/Mohandas

   

Top