Gujarat High Court High Court

Rasiklal vs State on 24 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Rasiklal vs State on 24 August, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

WPPIL/51/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

WRIT
PETITION (PIL) No. 51 of 2011
 

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

 

RASIKLAL
S MARDIA - PETITIONER
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - RESPONDENT
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for
PETITIONER : 1, 
MS KRINA CALLA, ASSTT.GOVT.PLEADER for RESPONDENT
: 1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
		
	

 

Date
: 09/05/2011  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

This
writ petition under caption “Public Interest Litigation”
has been preferred by Rasiklal S. Mardia, who appears as
party-in-person.

From
the prayers and the grounds shown in the petition, it will be evident
that he is alleging against the orders dated 5th April,
2011 and 21st April, 2011 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11023 of 2010. The said matter
is pending for consideration and with a motive to circumvent the
proceeding pending before the learned Single Judge, the present
petitioner has prayed to quash the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in this Public Interest Petition.

On
hearing the party-in-person, we are of the opinion that this is a
frivolous application filed by the petitioner for which heavy cost
should be imposed, but Mr. Rasiklal S. Mardia who is appearing in
person, sought for an apology and permission to withdraw the
petition. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is appearing
in person and may not have any idea of the Court, we refrain from
making any observation against him and are not imposing any cost. But
he may be cautious in future before filing such frivolous petitions
before this Court.

Petitioner
is permitted to withdraw the petition without any liberty to move any
petition for similar reliefs.

This
application is dismissed as withdrawn.

[S.J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]

[J.B.PARDIWALA,
J.]

pirzada/-

   

Top