Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajesh vs State on 21 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Rajesh vs State on 21 February, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/61/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 61 of 2011
 

In


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1954 of 2010
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3650 of 1997
 

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

RAJESH
G PURABIYA - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR PH
PATHAK for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
Mr N  J  Shah, Asstt. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1. We
have heard Mr P. H. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr
N.J. Shah, learned Asstt.Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to

3.

2. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken
this appeal for final disposal.

. Learned
counsel for the appellant has urged that he is ready to pay cost of
Rs. 1,000/- but he is not ready to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- per year
for 13 years , Rs. 13,000/- while the matter was pending before this
court. We are of the opinion that since the appellant did not
appear before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge was fully justified in imposing cost on the appellant.
But in our opinion, the cost of Rs. 1,000/- per annum for 13 years
is a bit too harsh. Interest of justice would be served if we
request the learned Single Judge to consider the restoration of the
Special Civil Application afresh.

4. The
appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single
Judge with a request to hear the restoration application afresh, at
the earliest, subject to His Lordship’s convenience.

[V
M SAHAI, J.]

[G
B SHAH, J.]

msp

   

Top