Gujarat High Court
Dhaval Bhadreshbhai Shah vs Union Of India Thro Secretary & ... on 2 September, 2014
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: Akil Kureshi, J.B.Pardiwala
C/WPPIL/206/2012 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 206 of 2012
================================================================
DHAVAL BHADRESHBHAI SHAH....Applicant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THRO SECRETARY & 2....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY H PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PK JANI, AAG WITH MR PARTH BHATT, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 2
-3
MR SAURABH G AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 02/09/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) By this writ application in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed for direction to declare the action of the respondent No.1 as unconstitutional as it advocates publicity through the advertisements by way of electronic media which are misleading in nature.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Central government over a period of time has been deliberately giving incorrect details in the advertisements issued under the title "Twenty Point Programme and Central Sector Projects - Contributing to Gujarat's Overall Page 1 of 2 C/WPPIL/206/2012 ORDER Development". Such action according to the petitioner is misleading.
The petitioner in support of his case has relied on few advertisements which are annexed at Annexure A collectively. The petitioner has also raised one more issue regarding the constitutional status of a Chairperson of a particular political party. According to the petitioner, the alliance of different political parties which formed the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) could not be said to be holding any constitutional post and the Chairperson of the UPA cannot have any constitutional status in our Constitution.
Taking into consideration the issues raised, more particularly the reliefs prayed for, we are of the opinion that by afflux of time, this petition has become infructuous. No purpose would be served by adjudicating the same and deciding the same on merits. We clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the legal issues raised. However, in view of the passage of time, any issue of writ would be a futile writ. Such being the position, we close this public interest litigation and dispose it of accordingly. No costs.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) (vjn) Page 2 of 2