Gujarat High Court High Court

Ramabhai vs Gujarat on 8 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Ramabhai vs Gujarat on 8 September, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7745/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7745 of 2010
 

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

RAMABHAI
KANUBHAI GARASIYA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD GUJ VIJ CO LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
CB DASTOOR for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR SP HASURKAR for Respondent(s)
: 1 - 3. 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/09/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

The matter is
dismissed on the short ground that the learned advocate has certified
the document as ‘true copy’, which on the face of it, is not.

The following
discrepancies are found in the typed copy of communication dated 25th
November 2009:

Annexure ‘C’
(page 18) is letter from Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited dated
25th November 2009, in a typewritten copy it is not so
reflected. There is a rubber stamp of Registered Post A.D. in
the original letter, whereas it is found missing in the typewritten
copy.

The original
letter is bearing No.3907. That number is missing in the typewritten
copy.

The
communication is from UGVCL. Whereas, in the typewritten copy it is
typed as VUJIVIS/ ELO/ VIJEU/MAHEKAM.

The letter is
addressed to Shri Ramabhai Kanubhai Garasiya.
Whereas, in the typed copy it is mentioned as Shanabhai
Kanubhai Garasiya .

In the
reference where the word is supposed to be VJP DO , it is typed
as VJYE DO .

A xeroxed copy
of the original letter is to be kept on record. However, with a view
to see that the petitioner is not put to injustice, liberty is
reserved in favour of the petitioner to file a fresh petition for the
same relief.

(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)

karim

   

Top