Gujarat High Court High Court

Riverside vs State on 2 May, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Riverside vs State on 2 May, 2011
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3622/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3622 of 2011
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4980 of 2011
 

To


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4982 of 2011 

 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4983 of 2011
 

To


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5012 of 2011
 
 
=========================================
 

RIVERSIDE
SCHOOL THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

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

Appearance
: 
MR AMIT M
PANCHAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI for
Respondent(s) : 3, 
=========================================

	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM
				: 
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
			
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 02/05/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Learned
counsel Mr. Amit Panchal has, before opening the matter, pointed out
certain difficulties faced by the residents and Sr. Counsel Mr. P.G.
Desai appearing for the Corporation has stated that a proposal has
already been moved to respondent No. 2 Army authorities for finding a
solution to the issue involved.

2. Learned
Asst. Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri has stated that he would
also see that a decision is taken, but has requested that some time
may be necessary.

3. Therefore,
considering the nature of the controversy, it is desirable that
respondent No. 2 army authorities may consider the proposal given by
respondent No. 3-Corporation with human touch and positive attitude
so as to find out some workable solution without compromising their
apprehensions about security or other such considerations.

4. Learned
counsel Mr. Champaneri will impress upon the authorities concerned to
expedite consideration of the proposal and respondent No. 2 shall
take appropriate decision within four weeks and in any case on or
before 14.6.2011.

S.O.

to 14.6.2011.

(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)

(hn)

   

Top