Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1428/2009 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1428 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14117 of 2007
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7932 of 2009
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1428 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================
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 ?
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHARDABEN
BHIKHABHAI SOYALIYA - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
Mr.
N.J.Shah, Assistant GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Appellants.
RULE SERVED for the
Respondent.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 28/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr.N.J.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
appellants. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14th June,2007 passed in
Special Civil Application No. 14117 of 2007. The learned Single Judge
in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of his judgment has issued the following
directions:
“8.
Therefore, it is directed to the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner and examine the grievance of the
petitioner in light of the observations made by the Apex Court as
referred above and when the father of the petitioner died at that
time whatever the policy was prevailing, same benefit should have to
extended in favour of the petitioner or not ? by passing appropriate
reasoned order in accordance with the law within a period of three
months from the date of receiving the copy of such representation
from the petitioner.
9.
In view of the above observations and directions, present petition
is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.
10.
However, in case if ultimate decision is adverse to the petitioner,
it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same before
appropriate forum in accordance with law.”
2. Since
only direction has been issued to the respondents to examine
grievances of the petitioner and for considering the claim
of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, we are not inclined
to interfere with the matter at this stage. We do not find any merit
in this Letters Patent Appeal. This Appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. As the Appeal is dismissed, Civil Application does not
survive.
(V.M.Sahai,J)
(G.B.Shah,J)
***vcdarji
Top