Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9219/2008 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9219 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RATILAL
KHIMJIBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PH PATHAK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SUNIT SHAH, GP, WITH MS NISHA PARIKH, AGP
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SANJAY M AMIN for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 01/08/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
After
the order dated 29.7.2008, the respondent No.1 ? Collector,
Gandhinagar has filed affidavit and explained the situation and
circumstances which caused delay in executing the recovery
certificate. It is also given out that the recovery certificate has
been executed and the amount in question has been paid over to the
petitioner workman. Mr. Pathak has admitted that the payment has been
made and nothing survives in the petition so far as the petitioner is
concerned. Mr. Amin for the respondent No.2 has also said that the
amount in question has been paid. Since the recovery certificate has
been executed and directions are complied with, the respondent No.1
is relieved from his obligation. The explanation given by the
respondent No.1 for causing delay is accepted. Since payments have
been made and the petitioner’s grievance does not survive, Mr. Pathak
prays that the petition may be disposed of.
A
copy of the voucher under which the payment has been made and the
petitioner has acknowledged the payment, is to be taken on record.
In
view of the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of. Notice
discharged. No order as to costs.
Kdc [K.M.Thaker,
J.]
Top