IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10749 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
No
————————————————————–
CHIMANBHAI P PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR DM THAKKAR for Petitioner
Ms Harsha Dewani, A.G.P. for respondent no.1
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No. 2
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
Date of decision: 10/02/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Ms Harsha Dewani, learned A.G.P. waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1.
Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned Counsel waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2.
At the request of learned Advocates appearing for
the parties, the petition is heard today.
By means of filing this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to
issue an appropriate writ or order directing the District
Development Officer,Kheda District Panchayat at Nadiad to
exercise powers under section 59 ofthe Gujarat Panchayats
Act,1993 and to pass final order in accordance with law
in the interest of justice.
From the averments made in the petition, it is
evident that in Special Civil Application no. 8079/96
decided by the Court (Coram: M.S.Parikh,J.) on October
23,1996 following direction was given :-
“The grievance in this petition is about delay in
proceeding u/s.59(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats
Act,1993.It is expected that the said proceedings are
expeditiously heard and decided. However, except to
observe so, no indulgence can be shown.
In view of above observation,Mr.D.M.Thakkar,
learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw
this petition.Permission to withdraw granted. Disposed
of accordingly. No order as to costs.”
Mr.D.M.Thakkar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has stated at the bar that though hearing is
concluded, respondent no.2 has not passed any orders. It
is not in dispute that respondent no.2 has not passed any
orders on the application dated August 17,1996. Under
the circumstances, prayer made in the petition deserves
to be granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition partly
succeeds. Respondentno.2 is directed to pass final
orders in accordance with law as early as possible and
latest within ten days from the date of receipt of the
order. Office is directed to send copy of this order to
respondent no.2 immediately. It will also be open to the
petitioner to produce a copy of this order before
respondent no.2 for necessary compliance. Rule is made
absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs. Direct
Service is permitted.
=======