Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9079/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9079 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
======================================
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 ?
======================================
KUSUMBEN
CHANDULAL CHUNILAL & 2 - Petitioners
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO' THE SECRETARY & 5 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
RM CHHAYA for Petitioners.
MR NIKUNT RAVAL, AGP for Respondent
Nos.1 - 3.
MR KK TRIVEDI for Respondent Nos.4 - 5.
DS AFF.NOT
FILED (R) for Respondent No. 6.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 04/03/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
The
petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the direction to the respondent
authorities to decide the application dated 09.01.2004 Annexure A to
this petition.
This
Court has issued Rule on 27.07.2004.
The
subject matter of this petition is also the subject matter of
Special Civil Suit No.294 of 2003 which is still pending before the
Competent Court. It is, however, stated that in the said suit, the
State is not a party and hence, the representation is made to the
State.
Normally
when the Civil Suit is pending, the Court does not entertain the
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In
the present case, even at the time of filing this petition, civil
suit is pending and still the Court has admitted the petition.
In
the above view of the matter, while disposing of this petition, the
Court directs the respondent authority to decide the petitioners’
application dated 09.01.2004, if not decided so far, in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible.
Rule
discharged without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Savariya
Top
