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 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan vs State Of Gujarat Thro Chief ... on 16 September, 2014

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: Akil Kureshi, J.B.Pardiwala

           C/WPPIL/7/2013                                 ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 7 of 2013

================================================================
        PATHAN MOHAMMED SULEMAN REHMATKHAN....Applicant(s)
                             Versus
        STATE OF GUJARAT THRO CHIEF SECRETARY....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH B DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VANDAN BAXI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                              Date : 16/09/2014


                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1. By this writ application, in the nature of  a   public   interest   litigation,   the  petitioner, a resident of Ahmedabad, seeks  to   challenge   the   notification   dated  16.08.2011 issued by the State of Gujarat  under   the   Commissions  of   Inquiry   Act,  1952.

2. To   put   it   briefly,   the   case   of   the  petitioner   is   that   the   State   Government  has constituted Justice (Retired) M.B.Shah  Page 1 of 4 C/WPPIL/7/2013 ORDER Commission.   According   to   the   petitioner,  the notification under the  Commissions of  Inquiry   Act,   1952   is   issued   only   with   a  view   to   frustrate   the   action   which  otherwise a duly appointed Lokayukta would  take up. It appears that this petition was  filed   after   the   pronouncement   of   the  judgement by the Supreme Court against the  order   passed   by   this   Court   in   Special  Civil   Application   No.   12632   of   2011   with  regard   to   the   appointment   of   a   Lokayukta  in the State of Gujarat. This petition was  filed on 16.01.2013. Till this date, even  notice has not been issued and it appears  that   on   27.09.2013,   since   none   had  appeared   for   the   petitioner   when   the  matter was called out, the application was  ordered to be dismissed for default.

3.Later on by filing Misc. Civil Application  No.   2284   of   2013   the   main   petition   was  ordered to be restored.

4. Even   thereafter   this   application   has   not  been   prosecuted   further.   Today,   when   the  matter   is   called   out   Mr.   Desai   appearing  on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   is   not  Page 2 of 4 C/WPPIL/7/2013 ORDER present.   We   have   perused   the   reliefs  prayed   for   in   this   petition   and   the  materials   on   record.   It   appears   that   the  very   same   notification   which   is   the  subject­matter   of   challenge   in   this  petition   was   challenged   by   some   other  person   by   filing   Writ   Petition   (PIL)   No.  24 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court  vide   order   dated   16.02.2012   considered  such writ application filed in the nature  of   a   public   interest   litigation   and   took  the   view   that   the   Commission   had   been  constituted under Section 3(i) of the Act  of   1952   after   complying   with   all   the  formalities required under the law and the  Commission   had   been   instituted   for   the  purpose   of   investigation   against   its   own  Government. On consideration of the entire  materials   on   record,   the   Division   Bench  rejected the writ application. Since this  notification has already been looked into  by a co­ordinate bench and nothing illegal  was found in the same, there is no reason  for   us   to   take   a   different   view   of   the  matter. 

Page 3 of 4

C/WPPIL/7/2013 ORDER

5.For   the   forgoing   reasons,   we   do   not   find  any substance in this application and the  same is rejected of accordingly. No costs.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Jyoti Page 4 of 4