Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/16196/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16196 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
DASA
DISAVAL VANIK GNYATI PANCH
THROUGH
MANAGING TRUSTEE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MTM HAKIM for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS KRINA CALLA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
:28/09/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) Be
pleased to direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to initiate, conduct and
prosecute action in furtherance to the petitioner’s complaint dated
17.6.2004 against respondent No.4, the erring Judicial Officer;
(B) Pending
admission, hearing and till final disposal of the present petition,
be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of para 15(A) above;
(C) To
award the costs of the present petition;
(D) To
grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit, just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity;
2. It
appears from the averments made in the petition that respondent No.4,
a Judicial Officer of the rank of Civil Judge, decided Regular Civil
Suit No. 83 of 2002 preferred by the petitioner herein as plaintiff.
Respondent No.4 vide judgment and order dated 6th Feb. 2004,
dismissed the Civil Suit preferred by the petitioner herein. It also
appears that against the said judgment, order and decree passed by
respondent No.4, an appeal was preferred before the District Court,
which came to be allowed, in which some observations have been made
as regards the manner in which the whole Suit was conducted and
decided.
3. Making
this as the base, petitioner wants this Court to initiate appropriate
enquiry or action against respondent No.4 Judicial Officer.
4. It
is brought to our notice that this entire issue was taken into
consideration by the High Court on its administrative side and after
due enquiry in this regard, it was found that no action is necessary
to be initiated against respondent No.4.
5. As
the issue has been looked into by the High Court on its
administrative side, we do not propose to go into all these questions
raised in the writ petition. In this view of the matter, we do not
find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby ordered to be
rejected with no order as to costs.
(A.L.
Dave, Actg. C.J.)
(J.B.
Pardiwala, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top