Gujarat High Court High Court

Registrar vs Punkajkumar on 27 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Registrar vs Punkajkumar on 27 September, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/408/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 408 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13979 of 2008
 

To


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 412 of 2010
 

In
 


SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.
13983 of 2008
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2539 of 2010
 

In


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 408 of 2010
 

To


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2543 of 2010 

 

In
 


LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 412 of
2010
 

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

REGISTRAR
& 3 – Appellant(s)

Versus

PUNKAJKUMAR
B HELAIYA – Respondent(s)

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

Appearance
:

MR
NJ SHAH, ASSTT.OVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Appellants.

None for Respondent(s) :

1,
=========================================================

CORAM
:

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE

and

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH

Date
: 27/09/2010

ORAL
COMMON ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

By
these appeals, the appellants challenge the following order passed by
the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 13979/2008
and allied matters, on 20.1.2009;-

RULE.

Expedited.

Interim relief in terms of Para-6(D) of each of the petitions.

The
respondent-State Government to file their reply, if any, within a
period of six months from today.

Order
in Civil Application.

Heard.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed
in terms of Paras-5(A) & (B).

Even
otherwise, it shall be open to the applicant to apply for certified
copies of the documents in question, in which case, the
respondent-authority will provide it, at the cost of the applicant.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.

2. Heard.

The order impugned is an interim order. The main petitions are
pending to be heard finally. It is contended that the regular
recruitment process would be stalled by this injunction. But, there
is nothing on record to show that such recruitment process has been
undertaken or a select-list is prepared. Non-grant of interim relief
to the petitioners-respondents herein would ultimately make the
petitions infructuous, if the respondents to the petitions and
appellants herein implement the termination of services of the
respondents herein. By the order impugned, no permanent relief, which
may cause permanent prejudice to the interest of the appellants, is
granted. The petitions before the learned Single Judge have already
been expedited. We do not think that this is a good case where powers
under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are required to be exercised.
The appeals must fail and stand dismissed.

Civil
Application Nos.2539/2010 to 2543/2010

In
view of the order passed in the main appeals, these applications do
not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.

[A.L.Dave,J.]

[M.D.Shah,J.]

(patel)

   

Top