Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Mr Vinay vs None For on 14 November, 2008

Author: Jayant Patel

Bench: Jayant Patel

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/914920/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9149 of 2008
 

==========================================


 

DASHRATHBHAI
GANESHBHAI VANIYA 

 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS
 

========================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR MAHENDRA
K PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR VINAY
PANDYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
7. 
==========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/11/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

1. The petitioner, by this petition has challenged the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) as well as its confirmation by the State Government, whereby the petitioner is not permitted to be impleaded as party in the proceedings of de-registration of the society which is pending before the Additional Registrar (Appeals).

2. Upon hearing Mr. Patel for the petitioner and the perusal of the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) as well as State Government shows that the main subject matter of the appeal is de-registration of the society and it is not connected with the rights of such society in the land, over which the claim is made by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be said that in the interim management of the society or its registration or de-registration, the petitioner would not have any say in the matter and therefore, the application is rightly rejected. Even otherwise also, the discretion exercised cannot be said as perverse nor can it be said that the lower authorities have committed error of jurisdiction, which may call for interference by this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

(JAYANT PATEL, J.) shekhar/-

    Top